Figure 1-Vicinity Map, Location of Damage Forest-wide, 2003 Flood

i Table of Content Chapter 1 –Need for Action ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Mountain Loop History, Desired Road Condition ...... 1 October 2003 Flood Event ...... 3 Need for Action ...... 6 Proposed Action...... 7 Proposed Repair at Milepost 33.1 (T30N, R11E, Section 29) ...... 7 Proposed Repair at Milepost 33.6 (T30N, R11E, Section 29) ...... 11 Proposed Repair at Milepost 34.8 (T30N, R11E, Section 28) ...... 16 Proposed Repair at Milepost 35.6 (T30N, R11E, Section 21) ...... 18 Project Scope...... 21 Project Scope...... 22 The Decision Framework...... 22 Relationship to the Forest Plan...... 22 Relationship to Other Documents ...... 27 Other Relevant Laws and Direction...... 28 Public Involvement ...... 31 Significant Issues...... 32 Significant or Key Issues ...... 32 Other Issues...... 33 Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action...... 34 Introduction ...... 34 Alternative Development Process...... 34 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study...... 35 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 41 Alternative 1 - No Action...... 41 Alternative–Proposed Action: Realign Road Away from River at Damaged Sites, Construct 60-Foot Bridge at Milepost 33.6 ...... 41 Alternative 3: Realign Away from River at Mileposts 33.1 and 34.8, Construct Long Multi-span Bridges at Mileposts 33.6 and 35.6 ...... 45 Mitigation Measures, Management Practices and Requirements, and Monitoring for Action Alternatives 2 and 3 ...... 50 Required Monitoring...... 53 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 54 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 58 Introduction ...... 58 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Affected Environment ...... 58 Project Area ...... 58 Geology/Soils...... 59 Hydrology ...... 60 Channel Dynamics ...... 62 Water Quality (Including 303(d) Streams)...... 65 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects...... 67 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action) – Aquatic Resources and Soils...... 68 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 2 (Proposed Action –Aquatic Resources and Soils...... 70

ii Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 3–Aquatic Resources and Soils...... 74 Aquatic Resources and Soils Cumulative Effects ...... 75 Fisheries – Affected Environment...... 81 Fish Presence in the Project Area...... 81 Special Fish Habitat Designations...... 83 Fish Habitat: Baseline Assessment at the Watershed Scale ...... 84 Fish Habitat: Baseline Assessment at the Watershed Scale ...... 85 Watershed and Fish Habitat Restoration...... 87 Fisheries – Environmental Effects ...... 87 Definitions, General Effects...... 87 ESA Consultation...... 88 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action) – Fisheries...... 89 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Fisheries...... 90 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 3–Fisheries...... 92 Fisheries Cumulative Effects ...... 94 Riparian Reserve Resources – Affected Environment ...... 98 Channel Dynamics and the Riparian Reserve ...... 99 Riparian Reserve Resources – Environmental Effects...... 99 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action) – Riparian Reserve Resources ...... 99 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 – Riparian Reserve Resources ...... 100 Riparian Reserve Cumulative Effects ...... 101 Wild and Scenic River – Affected Environment...... 103 Outstandingly Remarkable Values...... 105 Flood Damage and the Wild and Scenic River ...... 106 Wild and Scenic River – Environmental Effects...... 106 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1-No Action – Wild and Scenic River ...... 107 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Wild and Scenic River ...... 108 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 3 – Wild and Scenic River ...... 110 Wild and Scenic Rivers Cumulative Effects ...... 111 Introduction – General Effects ...... 112 Federal Threatened and Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitats ...... 112 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species...... 114 Other Wildlife Species – Additional Management Indicator Species...... 115 Survey and Manage Species...... 115 Wildlife – Environmental Effects ...... 116 ESA Consultation...... 116 Environmental Effects Common to All Alternatives – Wildlife ...... 117 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action) – Wildlife...... 118 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action) or 3 – Wildlife ...... 120 Wildlife Cumulative Effects ...... 123 Botany–Affected Environment ...... 127 Results of Surveys...... 127 Botany–Environmental Effects...... 128 Botany Cumulative Effects ...... 128 Heritage Resources–Affected Environment ...... 129 Cultural Setting ...... 129 Heritage Resources ...... 131 Environmental Effects – Heritage Resources...... 132 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1-No Action–Heritage Resources ...... 132 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternatives 2 or 3–Heritage Resources...... 132

iii Heritage Resources Cumulative Effects...... 133 Treaty Resources and Reserved Indian Rights...... 133 Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action)–Treaty Resources and Reserved Indian Rights...... 133 Effects of Implementing Alternatives 2 and 3–Treaty Resources and Reserved Indian Rights...... 133 Treaty Resources and Reserved Indian Rights Cumulative Effects ...... 133 Environmental Effects of Implementing the Alternatives...... 134 Visual Resources Cumulative Effects...... 135 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Affected Environment ...... 135 Road History ...... 136 Road Use...... 137 Recreation Use ...... 139 Tourism, Local Economy...... 143 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Environmental Effects...... 143 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action)...... 143 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action) and 3...... 145 Access and Receration, Tourism and Local Economy Cumulative Effects ...... 146 Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, Unroaded Lands...... 147 Environmental Justice...... 148 Environmental Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) – Environmental Justice...... 148 Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action) or 3–Environmental Justice...... 149 Other Resources...... 149 Air Quality Effects ...... 149 Prime Forestland, Farmland, and Rangeland ...... 149 Wetlands and Floodplains Effects (EO 11988 and 11990) ...... 150 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 150 Potential Conflicts with Plans and Policies of Other Jurisdictions ...... 150 Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted...... 151

iv Tables and Figures Table 1--Comparison of Alternatives ...... 55 Table 2–Peak Flows of the South Fork Sauk River **...... 61 Table 3–Estimated Sediment That May Enter the South Fork Sauk River from Repair Sites, No Action Alternative (tons and cubic yards) ...... 69 Table 4–Estimated Sediment That May Enter the South Fork Sauk River from Repair Sites, (Alternatives 2 and 3 Include Prescribed Mitigation Measures)...... 70 Table 5–Aquatic Resources and Soils – Cumulative Effects Determination for Projects in the Sauk and White Chuck Rivers...... 78 Table 6–Timing of Salmonid Species Habitat Use in the Sauk River System...... 83 Table 7–Watershed Restoration History in the Sauk River System ...... 87 Table 8–Fisheries Cumulative Effects Determination for Projects in the Sauk and White Chuck Rivers ...... 95 Table 9–Wildlife Cumulative Effects Determination...... 126 Table 10 Summary of Effects to Heritage Resources – Alternatives 2 and 3...... 132 Table 11–Vehicle Counts near Junction of Mountain Loop and Road 49 (North Fork Sauk River) ... 138 Table 12–Vehicle Counts Between Barlow Pass and Monte Cristo Lake...... 138 Table 13–Snohomish County Vehicle Counts at Buck Creek, About 2.5 West of Barlow Pass...... 139 Table 14-Bedal Campground Visitor Use ...... 142 Table 15–Walk-in Visitors to Darrington Ranger District Office ...... 147 Table 16–Race and Ethnicity Profile – Year 2000, Snohomish County, Washington State ...... 148

Figure 1-Vicinity Map, Location of Damage Forest-wide, 2003 Flood...... i Figure 2–The Mountain Loop National Forest Scenic Byway...... vi Figure 3–Detailed Map, Mountain Loop Proposed Road Repair Project Area ...... 2 Figure 4–Left Bank Failure Downstream of Damage Site at Milepost 33.1 ...... 4 Figure 5-Flood Damage at Milepost 33.1...... 8 Figure 6 Proposed Road Repair at Milepost 33.1...... 9 Figure 7–Mountain Loop Scenic Byway, Proposed Repair Sites and Wild and Scenic River...... 10 Figure 8–Flood Damage at Milepost 33.6 ...... 11 Figure 9–MP 33.6, Location of Proposed 60-foot (Approximate) Free-Span Bridge...... 12 Figure 10– Upper End of Proposed Repair, Approximate Location of Riprap ...... 12 Figure 11–Proposed Repair MP 33.6, Looking Down from Road ...... 13 Figure 12–MP 33.6, Location of the Lower end of the Proposed Bridge...... 14 Figure 13–Proposed Road Repair at Milepost 33.6...... 15 Figure 14–Flood Damage at Milepost 34.8 ...... 16 Figure 15–Proposed Road Repair at Milepost 34.8...... 17 Figure 16–Flood Damage at Milepost 35.6 ...... 20 Figure 17 Proposed Repairs at Milepost 35.6...... 21 Figure 18– Merged Land Allocations...... 24 Figure 19–Sample of Type of Bridge Proposed for MP 33.6, Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 43 Figure 20–Example of a Multi-Span Bridge, Proposed for MP 33.6 and 35.6, Alternative 3...... 46 Figure 21–Alternative 3, Proposed Repair at Milepost 33.6 ...... 47 Figure 22 – Alternative 3, Proposed Repair for Milepost 35.6...... 49 Figure 23– Avalanche Chutes, Twin Peaks Down to South Fork Sauk River ...... 60 Figure 24–Aerial View of the Upper End of the Project Area ...... 64 Figure 25– Wild and Scenic River Corridor Boundary and Milepost 33.6 ...... 104 Figure 26–Milepost 33.6, Rip-rap and Ordinary High Water Mark, Upper End of Proposed Repair.. 109 Figure 27–Trails in Vicinity of Mountain Loop Repair Sites...... 141

v Figure 2–The Mountain Loop National Forest Scenic Byway Map courtesy of www.byways.org

vi

Chapter 1 –Need for Action Introduction This Environmental Assessment analyzes the environmental effects for repairing road damage at four sites along a 2.4 mile-stretch of the Mountain Loop National Forest Scenic Byway (Mountain Loop1). The road was damaged during a severe flood event in October 2003 (see below for more on the flood event, and refer to Figure 1, inside front cover for Forest-wide flood damage locations. The damaged section of the Mountain Loop is located between Barlow Pass and Bedal Creek along the South Fork Sauk River, T.30 N. R.11 E., Sections 21, 28, and 29 WM, Snohomish County, Washington. The four damaged sites are located at road mileposts: 33.1, 33.6, 34.8, and 35.6, as measured from the town of Granite Falls. The Forest Service, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (MBS) proposes to repair this road damage. Emergency Relief for Federally Owned (ERFO) funding from the Federal Highway Administration has been provided for the repair.

Mountain Loop History, Desired Road Condition The Mountain Loop has a long history, dating back to the turn of the century. It was designated a Forest Highway in 1961 and a National Forest Scenic Byway in 19902. The 50-mile long highway is the only loop route of its kind on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (MBS). Located only a 30 to 60 minute drive from the populous Seattle-Everett metropolitan area,3 the Mountain Loop is a premier driving-for-pleasure destination. Refer to Figure 2, above and Figure 3– Detailed Map, Mountain Loop Proposed Road Repair Project Area, on page 2. The Mountain Loop offers spectacular scenic views of towering mountain peaks, rivers, streams, and waterfalls. A portion of the Byway follows the South Fork of the Sauk River, which—downstream of the 33.6 milepost on the Mountain Loop—is a Scenic River, part of the federally-designated Skagit Wild and Scenic River (P.L. 95-625, 1978). Besides the many recreation visitors, the Byway serves as a collector road for a few private residences, and provides administrative and local access during the non-snow months. While no exact figures are available, stop-in visits at the Darrington Ranger Station are down and local businesses report a negative impact on their businesses (see Chapter 3, Tourism/Local Economy). The majority of the 50-mile Byway is paved, double-lane; however, the 14-mile segment between Barlow Pass and the White Chuck River Road is a single lane, gravel-surface road with turn-outs. The 1990 Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBS) Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) assessed this segment of the Highway as Traffic Service Level B with a desired Future Service Level of A4. The Plan also called for double-lane, paving of the segment (USDA FS 1990, pg B-4), but that action has never been completed; see Chapter 3, Recreation – Road History.

1 Also Forest Road 20. 2 National Forest Scenic Byways are a distinctive collection of American roads designated by the U. S. Department of Transportation for their outstanding scenic, historic, recreational, cultural, archaeological, and natural qualities. See http://www.byways.org/ for more information. 3 There are over 3.4 million people living in the five-county area that encompasses the MBS (2004 Census). 4 A Service Level B road is congested during heavy traffic (recreation or logging activities); further, these roads are influenced more strongly by topography than by speed and efficiency. Service Level A roads are free-flowing with adequate passing facilities (USDA Forest Service 1990, pg 4-71, 4-74).

1 Introduction

Figure 3–Detailed Map, Mountain Loop Proposed Road Repair Project Area

T. 30 N.

R 11E

2 Introduction

The MBS Forest-wide Roads Analysis (USDA FS 2003) identifies the Mountain Loop as a High Need for recreation and to access heritage resources and Late Successional Reserves (LSR). However, this road is also rated as a High-Risk road for both aquatic and wildlife resources. The current operational maintenance level and the proposed maintenance level of the Mountain Loop Highway as Level 4: useable by all vehicle types, constant or intermittent aggregate surface, and user comfort and convenience a moderate priority. Snohomish County manages the Mountain Loop Byway except for the 14-mile unpaved section between Barlow Pass and the White Chuck River. Traffic counters located on either side of the four October 2003 flood damage sites show an average monthly vehicle use of between 3,500 and 4,200 vehicles. The Federal Highway Administration has estimated much higher road use on summer and holiday weekends (Kurtz 1995). Traffic counts also show that it is likely that a majority of vehicles along the Mountain Loop from the Granite Falls side travel past Barlow Pass; see Chapter 3, Road Use. Traditionally during the winter months, Snohomish County plows the road as far as Deer Creek, near Silverton on the Granite Falls side. The segment across Barlow Pass to the Bedal gravel pit is left unplowed and open for snowmobiles, cross-country skiing, and snow-shoeing. Snowmobilers routinely use both sides of the Mountain Loop to access the Monte Cristo town site. During very mild winters— such as the winter of 2004 to 2005—the road is open to vehicles.

October 2003 Flood Event The 2003 flood event produced some of the most severe storm damage seen on the MBS in many years. The event was localized primarily to the North Cascade Mountains, in east Snohomish, Skagit, and Whatcom Counties, and east-side counties, on the Darrington and Mt. Baker Ranger Districts. By September 2003, the snowpack in the North Cascades was at an unusually high elevation—5,500 and above—after the warmest September on record. Normally, high elevation snow is buffered and protected from melting by lower temperatures and deep snow packs. However, during a 24-hour period in October, more than six inches of rain fell in the Forest lowlands and up to ten inches in the higher elevation areas. Heavy rain fell onto bare ground and permanent snow fields and glaciers at elevations of 6,000 to 10,000 feet. This record-setting rainfall caused rapid melting of snow and ice, which— coupled with heavy rain at lower elevations—resulted in huge quantities of water in the Nooksack and Skagit River systems, including the Sauk and Suiattle Rivers. This event was unprecedented in the historical record of flows on the Sauk River. Water flow gauges, in place for over 70 years, measured an overwhelming increase in flows with the Sauk River Gauge going from 4,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) flow to over 100,000 cfs. A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge located on the Sauk River, above its confluence with the White Chuck River, showed that the October 2003 flood event was the largest event recorded since the gauge was installed in 1917. The 2003 flood event did not cause the typical rain-on-snow type damage, impacting higher elevation roads and trails. Instead, the damage occurred primarily along the river systems that concentrated flows from Glacier Peak and the higher elevation peaks of the North Cascade Mountains. Major damage was to main arterial roads, bridges, and trails and not just isolated road systems. None of the road or trail 3

Introduction bridges on the Suiattle River survived, and only one of two vehicle bridges remain in place on the White Chuck River. These high flows not only changed river courses, but contributed to the movement of very large volumes of sediment to the lower river systems, as evidenced by new sediment deposits of three to four feet in depth on gravel bars and in the floodplains. (This perched sediment continues to be transported during high water events.) The flooding also contributed to a major influx of large wood from trees that were uprooted and transported down the river systems. This wood contributed to river bank erosion while adding desirable large woody debris to the river channel (adding to channel complexity and contributing to fish habitat formation). The damage to the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway appears to also be a result of a large influx of debris—boulders, sediment, and woody debris—from the active, natural avalanche chute that originates in the Twin Peaks area and enters the South Fork Sauk River just downstream of Monte Cristo Lake (see Figure 21 and Figure 22, in Chapter 3). The avalanche chute experienced significant scour during the 2003 flood event, and it likely sent a pulse of material into the river. In addition, a large landslide was triggered directly below the avalanche chute and above the road washouts. These two events triggered a series of chain reactions that progressed downstream. (Refer to Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences for more information.) Figure 4, below, shows channel and bank scour that occurred during the October 2003 floods in the South Fork Sauk River, just downstream (100 to 200 feet ) of the milepost 33.1 damage site and about one-half mile upstream from the MP 33.6 damage site. The left bank failure was reactivated by the 2003 event and contributed to the large sediment pulse from the debris avalanche chute upstream (also see Figure 22, in Chapter 3, an aerial photo of the area). The sediment pulse caused additional bank scour, deposition, and channel avulsion downstream. Figure 4–Left Bank Failure Downstream of Damage Site at Milepost 33.1

4

Introduction

Past Flood Damage on the Mountain Loop This 2.4 mile portion of the Mountain Loop Byway is located close to the river channel and its narrow floodplain. The road has received minor to major flood damage over the years; refer to Appendix B - Historic Flood Damage and Chapter 3, Table 2. Since 1970, along this portion of the Mountain Loop, Forest engineers have replaced small-diameter culverts and log stringer bridges with larger culverts or with full-spanning bridges that provide both fish passage and allow transport of large flood flows and bed-load materials (meeting current Forest Plan standards). Based on the damage and repair records since 1974, the majority of these fixes have withstood repeated flood events. Only the site at milepost 33.6, between Monte Cristo Lake and Elliott Creek, has sustained repeated failures. Due to the natural topography—a valley with steep side-slopes and a narrow floodplain—and the alignment of the road here, on a narrow terrace of alluvium adjacent to the valley wall, this continues to be a high risk location. In the 1990 and 1995-96 flood events, the South Fork Sauk River encroached on the road at this site, with peak flows of about one-half the volume of the 2003 event (see Chapter 3, Hydrology). Repairs made in 1990 and 1995-96 consisted of simply replacing the road bank riprap and fill (see Appendix B - Historic Flood Damage).

Damage on Other Road Systems from the October 2003 Flood Darrington and Mt. Baker Ranger District specialists are concurrently analyzing repair of several other road systems that sustained damage during the 2003 flood. The initial assessment of needed repairs and estimated funding required to repair flood damage was determined and documented through the Federal Highways Administration’s Damaged Survey Reports (see project file). Emergency Relief for Federally Owned (ERFO) roads targets funding for reconstruction of roads that have suffered damage because of a n atural disaster over a wide area or from a catastrophic failure. Early in 2004, a Forest Service team analyzed the various proposals and determined that the scattered road damage repairs constitute similar but not connected actions, as defined by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1508.25 (a)(3)). The rationale for analyzing the damage by road system rather than in a single analysis is that the actions are similar in scope but are not considered to be connected actions: to repair or not any one road system would be independent of use of other road systems being analyzed. Also, impacts of the repair /no repair options were not viewed as having significant cumulative impacts (see project files and Chapters 2, Alternative Development Process).

The CEQ Regulations for implementing NEPA define “similar actions” and “connected actions” as follows: “Similar Actions” are those that when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental impacts together, such as common timing or geography. An agency may wish to analyze these actions in the same impact statement. It should do so when the best way to assess adequately, the combined impacts of similar actions or reasonable alternatives to such actions is to treat them in a single impact. “Connected Actions” are those that automatically trigger other actions that may require EIS’s, cannot proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously, or are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for justification (40 CFR 1508.25 (a)(3)) [emphasis added]. 5

Need for Action

Need for Action There is a need for action to repair the flood damage at mileposts 33.1, 33.6, 34.8, and 35.6 on the Mountain Loop Highway, and restore motorized access to a standard consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended (Arterial Road, Service Level B), consistent with the current road management objectives and Maintenance Level 4, as per the Access and Travel Management Plan (noted in INFRA database (USDA FS 1995)5 and consistent with the direction of Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and with specific management direction (goals, standards, and guidelines) for the Skagit Wild and Scenic River (USDA FS 1983/1984, 1990). There is a need to complete the repair within the timeframe, funding, and stipulations of Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads program (ERFO).6 This National Forest Scenic Byway is a premier driving destination for thousands of forest visitors. There is a need to restore motorized vehicle access for spring/summer/fall driving, and restore the “loop route” considered to be the heart of the scenic drive, when the road was designated a Scenic Byway (USDA Forest Service, 1990b). There is also a need to restore safe access for snow-mobiles, cross-country skiing and snow-shoeing during the snowy winter months. The proposed action would meet the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan, as amended, including managing the transportation system at the minimum standard needed to support planned uses and activities, and provide for public safety (USDA FS 1990, pg 4-7). There is a high need for access for other resource management needs (Roads Analysis, USDA FS 2003), and the proposed action would help meet the desired conditions for the Mountain Loop described in Roads Analysis (USDA FS 2003) and in Watershed Analysis (USDA FS 1996, the Sauk River, Sauk River Forks pg 5-35). Repair of the flood-damaged sites would again allow access to private lands/recreation homes from Granite Falls side of the Loop route7 and would be expected to boost recreation visits to the town of Darrington to at least 2003 levels (see Chapter 3, Effects on Tourism, Local Economy). Finally, as a result of the very-wet winter of 2005-2006, Highway 530 has a 250-foot long slump in the road, near a rain-soaked hillside, located roughly 10 to 12 miles west of the town of Darrington. Highway 530 ties into the Mountain Loop at Darrington and is the major route for town residents to reach Arlington and the I-5 corridor (see Figure 2, above). The risk of landslide and loss of this section of the road is still high (as of late February 2006). Even a modest slide could force the 2,000 vehicles that use this route each day to take a 110 mile detour, north through Burlington. While Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is monitoring the weak spot on a daily basis, the need to repair the Mountain Loop remains. While traffic is likely to take this detour north, at least during non-snow months, the Mountain Loop provides another route from Darrington to the metropolitan area. Local media have reported that is still possible that WSDOT may need to close Highway 530 to stabilize the hillside (The Herald, 2006).

5 Both the objective and operational level for the Mountain Loop is Maintenance Level 4: constant or intermittent aggregate surface or paved, user comfort and convenience a moderate priority, for all vehicle types (USDA FS 2003). 6 The ERFO program provides funding for the planning and repair of Federally-owned roads that have been damaged as a result of a natural disaster over a wide area or a catastrophic failure. Projects funded by ERFO monies are expected to be completed within a relatively short timeline. 7 These lands can be accessed via State Route 530, past Darrington, but the route roughly 20 miles. 6

Need for Action

Proposed Action The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest is proposing to rebuild and repair four flood damaged segments of the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway between Monte Cristo Lake and Bedal Creek, at milepost 33.1 downstream (north) of Monte Cristo Lake; milepost 33.6; milepost 34.8; and milepost 35.6, just upstream (south) of Bedal Creek. The proposed action would include: realigning the Scenic Byway away from the South Fork Sauk River channel (and as far away as topography allows at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6); constructing a 60- foot concrete bridge at the milepost 33.6 site over a portion of the road washout adjacent to a cliff; and upgrading culverts to meet current Forest Plan standards (capable of accommodating the 100-year flood, including associated bed-load and debris, USDA, USDI 1994, pg C-33). In this repair proposal, the length of rip-rap that would be placed as part of the repair would be less than the rock washed away by the October 2003 flood. Any excess/damaged road fill material would be removed to prevent it from washing downstream in future flood events. A total of about 0.95 acre of vegetation would be removed in the road realignment. Details of the proposed action follow. Refer to Chapter 2, Alternative 2 – Proposed Action for more information, including mitigation measures which are included as part of the each proposal.

Since the Preliminary EA was released for 30-day comment period: Forest engineer and specialists have fined- tuned design elements of the proposed repairs, as shown in the additional photos included in the following section. However, the proposed action as described in the Preliminary EA has not changed.

Proposed Repair at Milepost 33.1 (T30N, R11E, Section 29) During the October 2003 flood event, high water flow under-cut the toe of the road fill slope, resulting in the loss of approximately 100 feet of the outside edge of the road. Refer to Figure 5, below. At this site, the road sits on a terrace, above the river. This site is located upstream (west) of the Wild and Scenic River corridor. The proposed repair would include re-aligning a 150 to 200 foot section of the road about eight feet into the slope of the hill, on the uphill side of the road and away from the river. The road width would remain the same (16 feet wide plus required curve-widening8), with a crushed rock surface. See Figure 6-Proposed Road Repair at Milepost 33.1, on the following page. If necessary (e.g. if the cut-slope is high and steep enough), a rock buttress would be built at the toe of the new cut-slope; see sketch included in Figure 6. A new, 18-inch culvert (to current Forest Plan standards) would be installed on the upper (Verlot) end of the re-alignment. The over-steepened slope of the failed road shoulder and road edge (as pictured below) would be evened out (pulled back) and the excess material either hauled offsite or reused in the road repair work,

8 Forest Service Manual 7709.56. 7

Need for Action to lessen the chance of further loss of fill material into the river. No rock (rip-rap) or work adjacent to the South Fork Sauk River would be needed at this site. A total of about 0.10 acres of vegetation would be disturbed. Trees to be felled are small hardwoods and a few conifers, all less than eight inches diameter at breast height (DBH)). As the trees to be cut are too small for use as in-stream woody debris or to armor stream banks, they would either be left on-site to improve terrestrial woody habitat or hauled off-site and stockpiled at a rock pit near Bedal Creek and used as firewood. All disturbed sites would be seeded, or seeded/mulched as per the mitigation measures; see Chapter 2 for all mitigation measures included as part of the proposed repair. Figure 5-Flood Damage at Milepost 33.1

8

Need for Action Figure 6-Proposed Road Repair at Milepost 33.1

9

Need for Action Figure 7–Mountain Loop Scenic Byway, Proposed Repair Sites and Wild and Scenic River

# Mountain Loop Repair Sites ² k Me e r Cre ry B tin roo Mar k Skagit Wild and Scenic River Corridor T. 30 N. 4 015 016 0

9

Henry M. Jackson Wilderness 6 018 017 013 20

P # er MP 35.6 ry Cr eek

y a w B h e ig d al r H C ve r p ee Ri o 022 k 021 k o au L 019 rk S in 020 o a ek t 024 re h F n C u ck Sout o Bu M #

R. 11 E MP 34.8

k

e

e

r

C

h

c

i

w

c

o

h C

027 029 028 030 MP 33.1 MP 33.6 025 # # 0 8 0 4 E ll io tt C re ek

033 034 036 031 032

10

Need for Action

Proposed Repair at Milepost 33.6 (T30N, R11E, Section 29) During the 2003 flood event, high water flow cut into the original fill slope of the road and washed out approximately 250 feet of the entire roadway, back to bedrock in much of the area. Refer to Figure 8, below. This site is located close to the boundary of the Wild and Scenic River; see Figure 7, on page 10. For this analysis, it is considered within the Scenic River. See Chapter 3 and Appendix D. A portion of the Mountain Loop at this milepost is built directly adjacent to a 130-foot high bedrock cliff (located near the front-end loader shown in Figure 8), which eliminates the option of moving the road into the hill and completely out of the river channel. Figure 8–Flood Damage at Milepost 33.6

A single lane road would be constructed around the point of bedrock outcrop at the upper end of the damage, including a free-span concrete bridge (about 60 feet in length and 14 feet wide); the remainder of the damaged road section would be relocated away from the river to the extent possible—typically 10 to 20 feet. The total length of the proposed repair would be about 400 feet. Figure 9, below, shows the proposed location of the bridge, which would span a portion of the washed- out road. The bridge would be built adjacent to the bedrock cliff area, and would use bedrock as foundation for the abutments. A hydraulic rock breaker (hoe ram) and rock drill would be used to level/prepare the bedrock, so that the abutments can be tied to and stabilized on bedrock. Concrete wing or retaining walls would be built at each end of the bridge, extending beyond the bridge, to retain fill material at the bridge approaches and prevent the fill from being washed-out. Large riprap (roughly 4.5 to 5-feet in diameter and weighing 8,000 to 14,000 pounds) would be used to protect the fill just upstream of the first wing wall, for a distance of about 40 to 50 feet. See Figure 10, below, below.

11

Need for Action

Figure 9–MP 33.6, Location of Proposed 60-foot (Approximate) Free-Span Bridge

Approximate bridge span (not to scale)

Figure 10 shows the upper end of the proposed repair at MP 33.6, where riprap would be used to protect the road approach, to the point where the concrete retaining wall would support the road to the bridge abutment. The distance between the boulder and the bedrock is about 25 feet. Figure 10– Upper End of Proposed Repair, Approximate Location of Riprap

Bedrock Point

Approx. Extent of Riprap Start Retaining Wall

Ordinary High Water

Bedrock Boulder

12

Need for Action

The total length of riprap base may be up to 50 feet, to key the rock in at the upstream boulder and along the bedrock and retaining wall. Note that the materials exposed are characteristic of backfilled material brought in for a previous repair. The river terrace materials show on the right (Figure 10, above); a bedrock ledge is exposed on the left of the photo. Figure 11 shows another view of the upper end of the proposed repair, looking down from the road, and including the approximated extent of riprap to be place, and the location of the upper retaining wall. Figure 11–Proposed Repair MP 33.6, Looking Down from Road

Approx. Extent of Riprap Approximate Edge of Road

Start Retaining Wall

Ordinary High Water Bedrock Ledge

Figure 12, on the following page, shows the lower end of the proposed bridge location. The approximated ordinary high water mark is indicated, below the bridge section. At this point, the end of the bridge would be located back from the river, near the edge of the old road bed. (Also see Figure 13, the Plan View of the Proposed Repair at MP 33.6, below.) Note in the Figure 12 photo that road construction materials from previous construction show as a darker cap on top of the natural river terrace materials.

13

Need for Action

Figure 12–MP 33.6, Location of the Lower end of the Proposed Bridge

Approximate Outer Edge of Bridge

Approximate Ordinary High Water

Downstream from the cliff area, the roadway would be moved as far away from the river as practical (typically, about 10 to 20 feet) while still keeping a reasonable running surface alignment for the driving public. In this area, a single lane roadway, 14-feet in width, would be constructed, to minimize the impact on the river. Once the road has been realigned, any road fill material (within the damaged portion of the road) that was not washed away in the flooding would be pulled back and hauled away from the river. A ditch would be installed along the length of the repair (with the exception of the bridged area), on the uphill side, and a new culvert would be added upstream of the first bridge approach rail end. The road running-surface would be surfaced with crushed rock. An estimated 0.25 acres would be disturbed at the MP 33.6 repair site. Moving the road into the hillside would involve removal of a few trees (mainly hardwoods with a few, small conifers); all trees to be felled are less than 8 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). As they are too small for use in streams as woody debris or to armor disturbed stream banks, the trees that are felled would either be left on-site to improve terrestrial woody habitat or hauled and stockpiled at a rock pit near Bedal Creek for use as firewood. Refer to Chapter 2 for the complete list of mitigation measures included in repair of this site (including seeding all bare soil with native seed, if available, and mulching with weed-free material, etc.).

14

Need for Action

Figure 13–Proposed Road Repair at Milepost 33.6

15

Need for Action

Proposed Repair at Milepost 34.8 (T30N, R11E, Section 28) During the October 2003 flood event, high water flow undercut the toe of the road fill slope at this milepost, resulting in the loss of approximately 120 feet of the outside edge of the road. See Figure 14, below. The road sits on a terrace at this milepost. This site is located within the Wild and Scenic River; however, repairs at this site do not meet the definition of a water resources project. See Chapter 3, Wild and Scenic River and Appendix D. At this damage site, the proposed repair would involve moving approximately 200 feet of the road about eight feet into the slope, on the uphill side of the road and away from the river; refer to Figure 15, on the following page. The road running-surface would be the same width as in the past (16 feet wide plus required curve-widening) and again be surfaced with crushed rock. A ditch would be installed along the length of the repair. The vertical, over-steepened edge of the road would be pulled back to facilitate re-vegetation. No rip- rap would be installed along the river edge because large rock is already present within the channel. An estimated 0.10 acres would be disturbed at the MP 34.8 repair site. Moving the road into the hillside would involve removal of a few trees, mostly hardwoods with a few conifers. All trees to be felled are less than 8 inches in diameter DBH except for one hemlock, 18 inches DBH. The 18 inch hemlock can be used as large wood within the local streams or used to armor disturbed stream banks. The remaining trees to be removed are not large enough to be used in the local streams nor can they be used to armor disturbed stream banks. If feasible, trees to be felled may be left on-site to improve terrestrial woody habitat, or hauled and stockpiled at a rock pit near Bedal Creek and used as firewood. Refer to Chapter 2 for all Mitigation Measures included in the repair of this site (including seeding all bare soil with native seed, if available, and mulching with weed-free material, etc.). Figure 14–Flood Damage at Milepost 34.8

16

Need for Action

Figure 15–Proposed Road Repair at Milepost 34.8

17

Need for Action

Proposed Repair at Milepost 35.6 (T30N, R11E, Section 21) At this site, high water flow cut into the original fill slope and washed-out approximately 350 feet of the entire roadway; in places, road fill was eroded back to bedrock. Refer to Figure 16, below. This site is located within the Wild and Scenic River; however, repairs at this site do not meet the definition of a water resources project. See Chapter 3, Wild and Scenic River and Appendix D. At this fourth damage site, the proposed repair would include realigning about 400 feet of the road approximately 20 feet into the slope of the hill, away from the river. As shown in the Section A—B, in Figure 17 page 21, large rock would be keyed in-between existing bedrock veins that protrude into the river, to support the new road. This method—placing large rock on bedrock—would prevent the undermining that could happen if rock were placed in the streambed. A hydraulic rock breaker (hoe ram) would be used to shape the bedrock into a relatively flat surface for these large, placed rocks. The elevation of the base of the rock would be out of the bank-full elevation of the river; the only time water would touch these large rocks would be during high water (over the bank) events. The realigned road would be in-sloped, without a ditch, to keep the road prism narrower. If needed to reduce sloughing, ecology blocks would be placed up to four feet high at the base of the cut slope. The road-running surface would be approximately 14 feet wide, plus required curve-widening, and surfaced with crushed rock. A new culvert would be installed at each end of the excavation section. Any road fill material (within the damaged portion of the road) that was not washed away in the flooding would be pulled back and hauled away from the river. As the hillside is very steep at this location, moving the road roughly 20-feet horizontally into the hillside would impact about 0.5 acres of vegetation (an estimated maximum of 100-foot slope distance from the current road edge). Field reconnaissance found that the area affected is a young stand, with the trees up to 18-inches DBH, except for seven legacy trees: four hemlocks 20 to 35-inches DBH, two Douglas-fir 21 to 30-inches DBH, and one cedar, about 48-inches DBH. Trees in the young stand (mainly hardwoods with a few conifers, 8 inches in diameter or less) are too small for use as woody debris in streams or for use armoring local stream banks. They would either be left on-site to improve terrestrial woody habitat or moved and stockpiled at a rock pit near Bedal Creek for firewood. The large trees to be removed would be retained (off-site) for use as local, in-stream large woody debris; at this time, the Forest Service intends to use these trees at the White Chuck ERFO sites. Refer to Chapter 2 for complete mitigation measures (including seeding all bare soil with native seed, if available, and mulching with weed-free material, etc.).

18 Need for Action

(Blank Page)

19 Need for Action

Figure 16–Flood Damage at Milepost 35.6

20 Project Scope

Figure 17-Proposed Repairs at Milepost 35.6

21 Project Scope

Project Scope This EA analyzes the environmental effects of repairing four flood-damaged sites on the Mountain Loop National Forest Scenic Byway (Forest Road 20). As discussed on page 5, other Darrington and Mt. Baker Ranger District specialists are concurrently analyzing repair of several other road systems that sustained damage during the October 2003 floods. As noted above, the Forest Service has determined that the scattered road damage repairs constitute similar but not connected actions, as defined by the CEQ (also see Chapter 2, Alternative Development Process). Therefore, for the purposes of site-specific analysis required by NEPA, only the proposed repairs on the Mountain Loop are analyzed and effects disclosed in this document.

The Decision Framework The Responsible Official for this proposal is the District Ranger for the Darrington District, Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest. Based on the analysis in this document, and considering the public comments received during scoping and the 30-day comment period, the Responsible Official will decide: ƒ whether to repair the four damage sites as proposed, including all associated Mitigation Measures, ƒ to select another alternative, ƒ to select and modify an alternative, or ƒ to take no action at this time.

Relationship to the Forest Plan This environmental assessment is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. Major Plan amendments include: ƒ FEIS on Management of Habitat for Late Successional and Old Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, as adopted and modified by the April 1994 Record of Decision, which provides additional standards and guidelines (USDA, USDI 1994, and commonly known as the Northwest Forest Plan); ƒ Record of Decision Amending Resource Management Plans for Seven Bureau of Land Management Districts and Land and Resource Management Plans for Nineteen National Forests within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl to Clarify Provisions Relating to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA, USDI 2004); and ƒ Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2001) as reinstated by U.S. District Court Order (January 9, 2006), as the ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 20049. The Forest Plan, as amended, includes management goals and objectives and standards and guidelines, both forest-wide and specific to land allocations. The Forest Plan also incorporates the management direction in Final River Management Plan, Skagit River (USDA FS River Management Plan 1983 and

9 The January 2006 Court Order also set aside the 2004 ROD which removed/modified the survey and manage mitigation measure standards and guidelines. 22 Project Scope

Record of Decision 1994), as per direction in the 1990 Plan, pages 1-2 and 4-196. All proposed repairs for the Mountain Loop Byway are consistent with the management guidance and direction provided in these documents.

Land Allocations The 1994 Record of Decision land allocations amend those allocations described in the 1990 Forest Plan. There is considerable overlap among some allocations; more than one set of standards and guidelines may apply. In addition, where the standards and guidelines of the 1990 Forest Plan are more restrictive or provide greater benefits to late-successional forest-related species than do those of the 1994 ROD, the existing standards and guidelines apply. The 1994 ROD and the 2001 and 2004 amendments also include additional forest-wide standards and guidelines. All guide management of this National Forest. The section of the Mountain Loop Byway proposed for repair is located within a Tier 1 Key Watershed; refer to Relationship to Other Documents, below. The damage site at milepost 33.1 is located within Riparian Reserve and Late Successional Reserve (LSR). Underlying these allocations is Scenic Viewshed, Foreground. Starting at a point c lose to the damage at milepost 33.6 and including sites at MP 34.8 and 35.6, the road lies within the Sauk Scenic River portion of the Skagit Wild and Scenic River. Outside of the Wild and Scenic River corridor is LSR, with an underlying allocation of Scenic Viewshed, Foreground. Refer to Figure 18, below, for as map of all land allocations in the broader area; refer to the 1990 Forest Plan and the 1994 ROD for additional information.

Riparian Reserve: Includes areas along rivers, streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable or potentially unstable areas where the conservation of aquatic and riparian-dependent terrestrial resources receives primary emphasis. Riparian Reserve standards and guidelines apply and are added to the standards and guidelines of other designations (USDA, USDI 1994, pg C-1).

Late Successional Reserve (LSR): These Reserves are designed to maintain a functional, interactive, and late-successional and old-growth forest eco-system, in combination with the other land allocations and standards and guidelines of the 1994 amendment with the different LSR’s serving as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species, which includes the northern spotted owl. A Forest-wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA FS 2001) has been prepared.

Management Area 6, Skagit Wild and Scenic River, Scenic River: The Skagit Wild and Scenic River System, established by Congress in 1978 (PL-90-625), includes 158.5 miles of the Skagit River and tributaries (Sauk, Suiattle, and Cascades Rivers). Management of the System is to maintain or enhance: free-flowing characteristics and water quality of the rivers, and the outstanding, remarkable values for which the river was placed into the Federal System: wildlife, fish, and scenic qualities (USDA Forest Service 1983, Vol. II, pg 4). The Skagit Wild and Scenic River is considered part of the matrix, as timber harvest is allowed in Recreation and Scenic portions of the river (River Management Plan Vol. II, pg 56-57, as incorporated into USDA FS 1990, pg 1-2).

23 Project Scope

Figure 18– Merged Land Allocations

Merged Land Allocations 17 17 17 15LSRLSR 1BLSR 17 1D 2A 12 1BLSR 17 1BLSR 12 1B 17 LSOG n 2B 1BLSOG 15LSR 1B 15LSOG 2B 15 15 17 LSR 12 2B5A2B 12 17 2A 2B5A 155A 2B 2B5A 2A5A 2B 2B5A 5ALSOG FS 17 2A 2B5A 2B5A 2A LSOG LSOG 1B5ALSOG 2A5A FS 1BLSOG 1B 1B5A 15LSR 2B 17 LSR 19LSR LSR 19LSR 15LSR 12 2B 2A 12

99

LSR 1B 15LSR 15LSR 6 99 15LSR LSR 1BLSR 1BLSR 99 LSR 99 FS 15LSR

5BLSR 18LSR LSR 99 LSR LSR 5BLSR 1BLSR 99 1B5BLSR LSR LSR LSR 1BLSR 22B 1BLSR 1BLSR

99 LSOG 22B 99 22B 22B 1B5BLSR 1BLSR 1BLSR 99 99 1BLSR LSR 99 22B 99 1BLSR 99 2A 99

99 2A 99 2A 2A 99 2AFS 2A 99 99 99 1B FS 22B FS 1D 99

Mountain Loop Repair Sites

Mountain Loop Highway 1:126,720 February, 2006

24 Relationship to the Forest Plan

Management Area 2A, Scenic Viewshed, Foreground: Underlying the LSR, in the project area is Scenic Viewshed, Foreground. Scenic viewsheds accommodate a variety of activities which, to the casual observer, are either not evident or are visually subordinate to the natural landscape. The standards and guidelines for LSR are generally more restrictive than those for MA 2A; see the 1990 Forest Plan (pg 4-169 to 4-172).

Prior to release of the Preliminary EA for public comment, map analysis was completed to determine the boundary of the Skagit Wild and Scenic River in the proposed project area. Several different maps show slightly different boundaries in this area and on-ground surveys have not been done. Therefore, for this analysis, the damage site at milepost 33.6 will be considered to be within the Skagit Wild and Scenic River (along with sites at MP 34.8 and 35.6) Refer to Chapter 3, Wild and Scenic River and also Appendix D.

Relevant Goals, Standards and Guidelines The following includes goals, standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan, as amended, are most applicable to the repair of the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway. However, all applicable goals, and standards and guidelines apply; refer to the Forest Plan, as amended plus the River Management Plan, Final Skagit River (which is incorporated into the Forest Plan) for the complete list.

Roads Management (from USDA FS 1990, and USDA, USDI 1994): ƒ Goal: Build and maintain transportation system facilities to the minimum standard needed to support planned uses and activities (1990, pg 4-7). ƒ Goal: Manage the transportation system at the minimum standard necessary to provide for public safety (1990, pg 4-7). ƒ Goal: Provide and manage roads required to protect and manage the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (1990, pg 4-7 and 4-140). ƒ Forest-wide Standard/Guideline, Construction: Roads will be designed, constructed, and/or reconstructed according to standards appropriate to planned uses, activities, safety, economics, and impacts on land and resources, using criteria in FSM 7700 and 7720, or as revised (1990 pg 4-140).

Key Watershed Standards and Guidelines (from USDA, USDI 1994) ƒ Outside Roadless Areas, reduce existing system and non-system road mileage. If funding is insufficient to implement reductions, there will be no net increase in the amount of roads in Key Watersheds (1994, pg C-7). ƒ Key Watersheds are highest priority for watershed restoration (1994, pg C-7).

Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines for Roads Management ƒ RF-1: Federal, state, and county agencies should cooperate to achieve consistency in road design, operation, and maintenance necessary to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (1994, pg C-32).

25 Relationship to the Forest Plan

ƒ RF-2: For each existing or planned road, meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives by: a) minimizing disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of stream-flow and interception of surface and subsurface flow (1994, pg C-32), and b) restricting side-casting as necessary to prevent introduction of sediment to streams (1994, pg C-32). ƒ RF-3: Determine the influence of each road on the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives through watershed analysis. Meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives by: a) reconstructing roads and associated drainage features that pose substantial risk (1994, pg C-32), and b) prioritizing reconstruction based on current and potential impact to riparian resources and the ecological value of the riparian resources affected (1994, pg C-32). ƒ RF-4:Culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings…shall accommodate at least the 100-year flood, including associated bed-load and debris…Crossings will be constructed and maintained to prevent diversion of stream-flow out of the channel and down the road in the event of crossing failure (1994, pg C-33).

Late Successional Reserve Standards and Guidelines for Road Maintenance: ƒ While most existing uses and developments are envisioned to remain, it may be necessary to modify or eliminate some current activities in Late-Successional Reserves that pose adverse impacts (1994, pg C-16). ƒ For Road Maintenance: Road maintenance may include felling hazard trees along rights-of-way. Leaving material on site should be considered if available coarse woody debris is inadequate (1994, pg C-16). ƒ For Recreational Uses: Dispersed recreational uses, including hunting and fishing, generally are consistent with the objectives of LSR’s. Use adjustment measures such as education, use limitations, traffic control devices, or increased maintenance when dispersed and developed recreation practices retard or prevent attainment of Late Successional Reserve objectives (1994, pg C-18).

Wild and Scenic Rivers (from USDA FS 1983/1984 (ROD) and 1990): ƒ Goals: Provide opportunities for public access and use of the rivers while providing for rights of adjoining private land owners (1990, pg 4-7). ƒ Maintain a leadership role in protecting designated Wild and Scenic River values (1990, pg 4-7). ƒ Goal E: Final Skagit River, River Management Plan, Vol. II: Provide for public access to and along the banks of the…rivers, consistent with other resource capabilities, and the 1982 Interagency Guidelines (1983, Vol. II, pg 6). ƒ Goal H: Protect and maintain wildlife habitat (1983, Vol. II, pg 6). ƒ Goal I: Protect and enhance fish habitat (1983, Vol. II, pg 6). ƒ Goal N: Protect or improve present water quality (1983, Vol. II, pg 6). ƒ Goal O: Maintain and enhance free-flowing characteristics of the rivers (1983, Vol. II, pg 6). ƒ Maintain or enhance the recreation, visual, wildlife, fisheries and water quality values of the existing and recommended wild, scenic, and recreational rivers (1990 pg 4-95). ƒ Floodplains Management Direction Recreational and Scenic Rivers (R&S)10-5: Federal agencies will not participate financially, either directly or indirectly, in any bank stabilization project which

10 Management Direction R&S applies to Recreation and Scenic Rivers, Skagit River Final River Management Plan, Vol. II, 1983. 26 Relationship to Other Documents

threatens the visual or free-flowing characteristics of classified rivers until each project has been judged on its own merit through the Environmental Assessment process (1983, Vol. II, pg 16). ƒ Floodplains Management Direction R&S-8: Rip-rapping with natural appearing rock along the shoreline to preserve and protect investments existing since 1978 shall be acceptable providing that there are no other viable alternatives to the proposed action, short of abandonment. All riprap projects should be promptly revegetated with native or naturalized plant material (1983, Vol. II, pg 16). ƒ Transportation-Utility Management Direction R&S 9: Reconstruction of those roads existing as of November 10, 1978 will assure the reconstruction will not decrease the values in existence at that date of classification (1983, Vol. II, pg 55). ƒ Fisheries Management Direction R&S 3: Priority will be given to all management decisions that protect or enhance existing fishery values (1983, Vol. II, pg 53). ƒ Water Quality Management Direction R&S 4: Place special emphasis on protecting streamside vegetation (1983, Vol. II, pg 54). ƒ Water Quality Management Direction R&S 5: Give priority to protection of water quality in cases of conflict between water quality and other resource uses. Prevent alteration of natural channels or stream banks that would significantly affect (1) the free-flow of water, (2) the appearance of the stream, (3) fish habitat, or (4) water quality (1983, Vol. II, pg 54).

Relationship to Other Documents

Watershed Analysis As mentioned above, the entire National Forest portion of the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway is located within a Tier 1 Key Watershed—a component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA, USDI 1994). These watersheds were designated as sources for high water quality; they contain at-risk anadromous fish (e.g., salmon) and bull-trout. Key watersheds are highest priority for watershed restoration. The proposed project area is located within the South Fork Sauk River fifth-field watershed. Watershed analysis has been completed: Sauk River and Sauk River Forks Watershed Analysis, January 1996. The Watershed Analysis synthesis summary table lists the desired condition for the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway as: providing a pleasant scenic driving loop; meeting public expectations; providing for public safety; and providing adequate parking at trailheads and viewpoints. Management opportunities in the area include road improvements or traffic management (USDA FS 1996, pg 5-35). Other findings from the analysis are incorporated by reference as appropriate, throughout this EA.

Late Successional Reserve Assessment: A Late Successional Reserve Assessment has been prepared for the entire MBS (USDA FS 2001). The Mountain Loop Highway runs through LSR 116, a large, 110,108 acre reserve that falls within four drainages, including the Upper Sauk River. Vegetation to be removed at the four damage sites includes shrubs, some hardwoods, and some small conifers, plus one hemlock at milepost 34.8 (about 18-inches DBH) and additional larger conifers plus seven larger legacy trees to be felled at milepost 35.6. No LSR thinning treatments are proposed, and the total amount of vegetation clearing involved in the proposed road re-alignment is estimated at slightly less than one acre.

27 Other Relevant Laws and Direction

Roads Analysis Forest-wide roads analysis, a process used to make informed decisions related to road management, has been completed: Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Roads Analysis, July 2003. Roads analysis is not a decision-making process, but it assesses Forest transportation management needs, long-term funding, and expected ecosystem, social, and economic effects. Each road segment on the Forest was assessed for both access needs (e.g. needed for recreation, vegetation management, etc.) and by concern for resource impacts. This information can be used to provide the responsible official with critical information needed to identify and manage the Forest road system. In the Management Matrix, the Mountain Loop Highway was rated as a High Need for access for recreation, LSR, matrix, and heritage resources. The 14-mile unpaved section was also rated as a High Risk for aquatic and wildlife resources. For wildlife, the “high risk” rating was based on the road location, less than 0.5 miles from known mountain goat use and historically known spotted owl and marbled murrelet nest areas. For aquatic resources, the “high risk” rating is more complicated. Some of the factors leading to the rating include: the location of the road within the rain-on-snow zone; some history of road-associated failures that have not yet been corrected; the original road construction (pre-1970) which used side-cast excavation; and the fact that the area contains high aquatic resource values (see USDA FS, 2003, Appendix B for more).

Other Relevant Laws and Direction

National Environmental Policy Act This environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with regulations established under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, requires federal agencies to review actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them, to ensure such actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of listed critical habitat. The Forest Service consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS – also known as NOAA Fisheries) if projects potentially could affect listed species. The MBS currently has three programmatic consultation documents with these regulatory agencies that cover much of the Forest’s program of activities for several years.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, requires Federal action agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce (NMFS) regarding certain actions. Consultation is required for any action or proposed action authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH) for species identified by the Federal Fishery Management Plans. For this project, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Plan manages for Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. According to EFH regulations, 50 CFR section 600.920(a)(1), EFH consultations are not required for completed actions or project-specific

28 Other Relevant Laws and Direction

actions with a signed decision under NEPA, and these regulations enable Federal agencies to use existing consultation and environmental review procedures to satisfy EFH consultation requirements.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Executive Order 11593, 36 CFR 800.9 (Protection of Historic Properties) Section 106 requires documentation of a determination of whether each undertaking would affect historic properties. The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (MBS) operates under a programmatic agreement between Washington State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for consultation on project determination.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 703 of Public Law 90-542 amended the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate selected segments of the Skagit, Cascades, Sauk, and Suiattle Rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System (WSR). As noted above, the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Skagit River System are fisheries, wildlife, and scenic quality (USDA FS 1983). Designated rivers are classified as wild, scenic, or recreational, depending upon type and intensity of development. The mainstem Sauk River is 50.8 miles longs and classified as scenic, which is defined as “[f]ree of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and largely undeveloped, but accessible by road in places.” Evaluation of water resources projects within the National Forest System is addressed in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (82 Stat. 906, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1271 (Note), 1271-1287). Section 7 of the Act provides authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate and make a determination on water resources projects that affect wild and scenic rivers. (The authority for that determination for projects on National Forest System lands is delegated to the Forest Supervisor (FS Manual 2350)). Section 7(a) prohibits departments and agencies of the United States from assisting in the construction of any water resources project that “…would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such a river was established…” Only the proposed repair at milepost 33.6 meets the definition of a water resources project, in that the proposed activities are federally assisted and within the bed and bank of the South Fork Sauk River (see Figure 7, page 10; also see Appendix D). Implementing rules to guide evaluation of proposed water resource projects are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations Part 297 (36 CFR 297). Additionally, the Forest Service must comply with the Interagency Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification, and Management of River Areas, published in the Federal Register on September 7, 1982 (47 FR 39454). Forest Service Manual 2354.76, details the process for conducting the Section 7 determination. See Appendix D, Section 7(a) Determination, below.

Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA) and subsequent amendments established the basic structure of regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to implement pollution control programs and to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The EPA delegated implementation of the CWA to the States; the State of Washington recognizes the Forest Service as the Designated Management Agency

29 Other Relevant Laws and Direction

for meeting CWA requirements on National Forest System lands. Executive Order 12088 also requires the Forest Service to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. All federal and state laws and regulations applicable to water quality will apply in any implementation of the proposed road repairs. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires Washington State (Department of Ecology) to periodically prepare a list of all surface waters where pollutants have impaired the beneficial uses of water (for drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, etc.). Types of pollutants include high temperatures, fecal coliform, excess nutrients, low levels of dissolved oxygen, and toxic substances. The current Washington State list for these Water Quality Limited Water bodies is dated 1998; a new list is in preparation but has not been approved by EPA.

Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 give federal land managers an affirmative responsibility to protect the air quality-related values (including visibility) within Class 1 areas. Wilderness is designated as Class 1 areas for air quality protection. Visibility is a value that is protected primarily within the boundaries of a Class 1 area, although the Clean Air Act includes provision for definitions of vistas integral to a visitor’s experience, even if these vistas extend beyond the boundaries of the Class 1 area.

Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplains) and 11990 (Wetlands) Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 (1977) address floodplains and wetlands. The purpose of these orders are to “…avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development…” and “…avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands…”

Invasive Species Management The 1999 Executive Order on invasive species (direction found in Forest Service Manual 2080) the National and Regional strategies for noxious weed management, and the Mediated Agreement of May 24, 1989, identify prevention as the preferred strategy for managing competing and unwanted vegetation. In addition, all work on the MBS is guided by the Forest Plan, Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prevention Strategies, and Best Management Practices for noxious weeds, including cleaning of construction equipment, prompt re-vegetation of disturbed sites, and use of weed-free mulch (USDA FS, 1990, as amended 1999, Amendment #14). A Record of Decision has been signed for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants, Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA October 2005). This document amends all Forest Plans in Washington and Oregon with goals, objectives, and standards related to invasive plants that complement the Best Management Practices already in effect on the MBS. The 2005 ROD standards also prescribe prevention, cleaning of equipment, use of weed- free straw and much, use of weed-free rock and gravel sources, and prompt revegetation with native species or non-invasive non-natives. This EA is tiered to this broader-scale analysis (the FEIS) and all activities proposed are intended to comply with the new management direction.

30 Other Relevant Laws and Direction

Public Involvement In February 2004, following the development of the proposed action, “scoping” letters were mailed to a large number of individuals and organizations. In addition, the Responsible Official contacted the following Tribal chairs, asking for comments or any input: Lummi Indian Business Council, Nooksack Indian Tribal Council, Samish Tribe, Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Council, Upper Skagit Tribal Council, Snoqualmie Tribe, Stillaguamish Board of Directors, Swinomish Tribal Community, and Tulalip Board of Directors. Information about the proposed Mountain Loop road repair project was included in these notices, along with information about other proposed flood repair projects on the northern portion of the Forest. (Refer to Chapter 2, Alternatives Development Process and Appendix A.) There was considerable media coverage of the October 2003 flood event and the subsequent proposed repairs. Road damage reports, photos of the flood damage, meeting notices, and information about the request for comments and more have been posted, periodically, on the MBS internet site (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/). Forest staff held open public meetings on the proposed Mountain Loop road repair, as well as the proposals for other road damage across the north half of the MBS (in Darrington on May 6, 2004 and at the Supervisor’s Office in Mountlake Terrace on May 18, 2004). Comments on the proposal were received from 27 respondents, including: Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; the Swinomish Tribal Community; the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe; a number of groups, organizations; and individuals (including private land owners who live along the Byway). The Mountain Loop Road Repair project was listed in the PALS database, starting July 1, 2004 (which is the electronic form of the Schedule of Proposed Actions and is posted quarterly on the MBS website). All comments received were considered and used to amplify the preliminary issues and alternatives. See Appendix A for a complete list of comments received, and how they were addressed in the analysis. In May 2005, the preliminary environmental assessment (EA) was made available to the public for a 30-day comment period. A total of 51 copies were mailed to all who participated in the initial scoping process or who had requested a copy of the EA, including individuals, groups and nine tribal councils. The Preliminary EA was also made available on the Forest Service website. Further, an article describing this project and informing the public of its availability for comment was published on May 15, 2005 in “The Herald,” a daily newspaper published in the City of Everett, Snohomish County. Legal notice of the availability of the Preliminary EA was published in The Herald (the newspaper of record) on May 15, 2005. By the end of the comment period, a total of 16 individuals, organizations, and Tribes had commented on the preliminary EA, providing the Responsible Official and the interdisciplinary analysis team over 80 substantive comments. See Appendix A for a list of those individuals, etc, who commented. The team and the Responsible Official considered all comments received (as per 36 CFR Part 215) and, where appropriate, enhanced the analysis in response to those comments. Shaded text boxes are included throughout the text of this EA, describing how comments were considered in the analysis. Copies of the comments received and documentation of the agency’s consideration of those comments are available in the project files.

31 Significant or Key Issues

Significant Issues Identifying the significant (or key) issues provides focus for the analysis. Significant issues are used to develop alternatives to the proposed action, prescribe management requirements and constraints, and mitigation measures; they are also used in analyzing environmental effects. The Responsible Official for this proposed project, Darrington District Ranger Terry Skorheim [since retired] reviewed the public comments received during scoping and the preliminary issues to determine the significant issues to be addressed in this analysis (see project files). The indicators or measures included for each issue are used to compare alternatives and can be traced through the analysis.

In response to comments received during the 30-day comment period:The text describing the significant issues has been enhanced (as per 36 CFR Part 215, Supplementary Information, 215.6) and their order rearranged. One “other” issue related to noxious weeds has been dropped, as on-the-ground field surveys found no noxious weeds present in the proposed repair sites (Preliminary EA, web version, pg 82).

Significant or Key Issues

Potential Effects to Fish and Fish Habitat in the South Fork Sauk River All of the repair sites along the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway are located within a Tier I Key Watershed. No action or reconstruction activities at all four sites could potentially affect the habitat for threatened or endangered fish species. Habitat may be affected through the introduction of additional silt and sediment into the river via exposed, bare soils along the river edge. Reconstruction or no action may affect river gravels in the immediate vicinity of the construction sites so that they are no longer suitable for fish to use for spawning. Finally, fish may be harassed or harmed from the concussive sound generated by a hydraulic breaker (to break up bedrock at damaged sites at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6). Measures or Indicators: ƒ The amount of soil and vegetation disturbed along the river banks (measured in acres); ƒ The magnitude and duration (temporal and spatial) of any sedimentation in the river; and ƒ The magnitude and duration (temporal and spatial) of impacts from concussive noise vibrations.

Potential Effects to the Free-Flowing Nature of the South Fork Sauk River Three of the proposed repair sites are located within a segment of the Skagit Wild and Scenic River System: South Fork Sauk River, classified as Scenic (USDA FS 1990 pg 4-196). Prior to the October 2003 flood, the South Fork Sauk River flowed approximately 200 to 300 feet west of the current channel location. During the flood event, the river moved towards the opposite (east) side of the canyon, undercutting and washing out portions of the Mountain Loop Byway. At the proposed repair sites, the river channel is now adjacent to the remaining road. Due to the confines of the valley wall, there is limited opportunity to re-align the road away from the river. There is concern that the proposed repairs may encroach on the active river channel and affect the free-flowing characteristics of the South Fork Sauk River.

32 Other Issues

Measures or Indicators: ƒ Effects on conditions of free-flow and water quality; and ƒ Direct and adverse effects on the outstandingly remarkable and other resource values.

Other Issues

Wildlife: Effects to the Late Successional Reserve (LSR) One proposed repair site, at milepost 33.1, is located within Riparian Reserved and LSR; LSR lies immediately adjacent to the Wild and Scenic River at the other sites. All sites are located within Designated Critical Habitat for both the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. Repairing the Byway will involve some removal of (mostly small) trees, but a few larger trees (greater than 20 inches diameter at breast height), which may reduce the amount of available habitat in this drainage for both the spotted owl and murrelet. Measures or Indicators: ƒ Total amount of habitat affected by repair activities.

Road Design: Potential for Repair Sites to Washout Again The Mountain Loop Highway has been in existence for decades as a mine-to-market road, a route to haul commodities to various markets, and as a destination loop drive for recreationists. In the project area, the road is located in a valley with steep side-slopes and a narrow flood plain. Historic records of peak flows along the Sauk River since 1917 show that, while heavy rain and flooding occurred periodically, the first flood to significantly damage the Mountain Loop system occurred in 1980.11 Since 1974, only four sites on the Mountain Loop have had repeated failures (see discussion on Past Flood Damage, above, and Appendix B, Historic Flood Damage). One of these sites is the proposed repair site at milepost 33.6. Problems with the road at this point are due in part to its location and to earlier road design. Generally, repair work over the past several years to replace culverts and bridges or large diameter culverts capable of transporting bed load materials (and meeting Forest Plan standards) has withstood subsequent floods. There is still concern (and some public perception) that the road would fail again in the next large flood, particularly if the road is replaced in the same location and using the same designs and techniques as in the past. Measures or Indicators: ƒ Road location for each repair site, with length of road within the ordinary high water mark.

11 Peak flows of the Sauk River were recorded in 1917, 1921, 1932, 1949, 1951, 1979, 1980, 1990, 1995, and 2003; refer to Chapter 3, Hydrology for more. 33

Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Introduction The initial assessment of the repairs and the estimated funding required to repair flood damage was determined through the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA). Once FHWA finished their input, the individual interdisciplinary team (ID Team) for the Mountain Loop project collated all known information and developed and refined a proposed action. The Responsible Official (District Ranger Terry Skorheim, retired, followed by Jon Vanderheyden, Interim District Ranger) approved the proposed action and alternatives to it, as well as the significant issues identified in Chapter 1. In this chapter, the three alternatives considered in detail for the Mountain Loop Byway repair are described. The two action alternatives and the alternative of no action are presented in comparative form, so that the differences among them are clear to both the decision-maker and the public. Note that Alternative 2, Proposed Action, is described in some detail in Chapter 1; in Chapter 2, references will be made to the figures etc. already presented, rather than repeating them here.

Alternative Development Process In January 2004, Acting Forest Supervisor Y. Robert Iwamoto chartered a team to examine the flood damage and possible repairs to the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway, and to present to the Responsible Official (District Ranger, Darrington Ranger District) a thorough analysis of the effects of the proposed action/alternatives to it, including how each alternative met the need for action. The ID Team assessed the existing condition of the Mountain Loop and reviewed the flood history (see Appendix B). They compared the existing condition to the desired condition for this road, as established by the Forest Plan, as amended. The team also examined findings from the 1995 ATM process, the Sauk River and Sauk Forks Watershed Analysis (USDA FS 1996), and other laws regulations, and direction—as described in Chapter 1. Additionally, the Forest Service determined that repairing the Mountain Loop in the same location, in “like kind”—particularly at milepost 33.6—would not likely withstand possible future flood events. Therefore, other design alternatives were explored. Once a proposed action had been determined, the scoping process began, including considerable public involvement (see Chapter 1 and Appendix A). Early public participation produced input from 27 commenters. The ID Team reviewed each comment (Appendix A) and used this input, as well as issues from the public meetings, and internal (agency) scoping, to identify significant issues. These comments were used, in combination with the stated purpose and need for action, to formulate alternatives, design criteria, and mitigation. The No Action alternative is required (40 CFR 1502.14d). The no action alternative may be used as a baseline for comparison to the action alternatives, although it does not meet the stated need for action. For Mountain Loop, no action is defined as no change from current conditions (i.e. the road would not be reconstructed, there would be no restoration projects, and the road would be permanently blocked isolating the 2.4-mile section of the Mountain Loop Highway).

34 Alternative Development Process

All proposed actions would meet existing laws, regulations, and policies. All known threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant or animal species would be protected from adverse impacts. Wetlands would not be adversely affected. Cultural Resources would be protected in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, Executive Order 11593, and other legislation and policy.

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study When the scoping process started for repair of the Mountain Loop Byway, several alternative proposals surfaced. These options—including a proposal to close the road permanently and construct some type of trail along the damaged sections—were examined. A brief description of each is disclosed below, along with the reasons for eliminating these alternatives from detailed study.

Rebuild in Place, Using Past Design Methods This alternative would include rebuilding the Mountain Loop in the same location and using the same repair methods and designs as used in past repairs (see Appendix B, Table B-1, Flood Damage). Repairs would include replacing road fill lost at the four sites (with no bridge(s)), replacing the riprap and the crushed-rock road surface. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study for the following reasons: At milepost 33.6, similar repairs were done after the 1990 and the 1995-96 flood events. After the 1995-96 event, the full length of the 33.6 site was rip-rapped. In the huge October 2003 flood, the river cut into the road fill slope at MP 33.6 and washed out a large section of the road, down to bedrock in places. With the large surge of sediment transported through this area, the South Fork Sauk River migrated across the floodplain, shifting toward the Mountain Loop Highway. The river is currently split in two channels (see Chapter 3, Channel Dynamics). One of the two channels occupies the site where the Mountain Loop was prior to the 2003 flood; see Figure 8–Flood Damage at Milepost 33.6, in Chapter 1. As the South Fork Sauk River has migrated in its channel, replacing the road fill in the original locations would mean dumping fill material in what is now the current river bed at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6. This action would also force the river back towards its pre-2003 flood location. Rip-rap would be placed along the fill of the road and within the river bed; once work was completed, the river would be continuously flowing against the riprap. Rebuilding in place, using past design/repair methods would be likely to fail again, in a major flood event. Additionally, each time a segment of road is washed-out, there is an influx of sediment into the river system that can affect fisheries in the river. Finally, repair in place and resultant moving of the river back towards its former channel at mileposts 33.6 and 35.612 may affect the “free-flowing” nature of the Wild and Scenic River.

12 Since the preliminary EA was released, the damage site at mile post 33.6 has been considered to be within the Wild and Scenic River corridor, as it is very close to the boundary. See Chapter 1.

35 Alternative Development Process

Reroute the Mountain Loop at MP 33.6 Using a Tunnel or Blasting At milepost 33.6, the flood waters of the South Fork Sauk eroded the much of the road fill back to bedrock. Two options for rerouting this segment of road were considered: 1) tunnel through a portion of the bedrock at the upper (southern) end of the damaged area and then blast a road bed into the bedrock on the northern portion of the damage site; and 2) blast through the bedrock cliff (see Figure 8 page 11 and Figure 10, page 12) and construct a roadbed on top of the rock (without tunneling) for the length of the entire repair site. Both options were dropped from detailed study. The tunnel option would be expensive—an estimated $1.5 million plus—and was considered to be cost prohibitive when compared to other repair options that would meet the need for action. The second option for MP 33.6 was also eliminated. It would entail construction of a temporary road on the north side of the bedrock cliff, roughly 0.25 miles in length to access the top of the cliff. Next, about 50 to 80 vertical feet of a bedrock cliff would have to be drilled and then blasted down to the existing road level. This option was also eliminated due to cost and the difficulty of the work in this situation, and due to resource concerns. Building the temporary road would involve removal of vegetation in Late Successional Reserve (and Critical Habitat for spotted owl and murrelet), and there would be an increased risk of sediment entering the South Fork Sauk River, especially given the 50 to 70 percent side slope at the temporary road site. There was also a concern regarding impacts of blasting of this magnitude to fish (from concussive sound generation).

Re-Route the MP 34.8 to 35.6 Section of Mountain Loop Using Other Roads The ID Team examined the possibility of re-routing the Mountain Loop Highway around the repair sites at Mile Post 34.8 and Mile Post 35.6, via Forest Road 4096 from Bedal Creek (which is partially open and drivable for approximately 2 miles) and the short 0.75-mile section of Road 4080 at Elliott Creek, which is still open and drivable (see Figure 3, Chapter 1). This alternative was eliminated from further analysis as well. The center sections of both of these roads (about 4 miles) were closed 10 to 15 years ago due to numerous resource concerns (landslides, fill failures, sediment production, flooding of side-channels, etc.). Reopening these roads would involve considerable reconstruction including, 1) widening the road, cutting deeper into the hillside to accommodate a 1-1/2 to 2 lane road; 2) rebuilding the running surface; 3) replacing and upgrading any culverts and upgrading ditches; and 4) either installing large culverts at the crossing with Bedal and Chocwich Creeks, or building bridges. The reconstruction would also involve some tree removal (for road widening) in northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet critical habitat and LSR. The alternative was also dropped from detailed study due to public safety concerns: to handle the large motor homes (Class A type) that frequently use the Mountain Loop, any reroute via Roads 4096 and 4080 might involve additional widening and possibly re-alignment realigned (probably on switch-back corners) to allow for safe passage of this type of vehicle. Reopening these roads would again raise the very concerns that prompted their closure a decade ago.

36 Alternative Development Process

Relocate the Mountain Loop, New Road Construction An alternative that would relocate much of the damaged section of the Mountain Loop Byway was considered by the ID Team. Options included moving the road to the opposite side of the river, away from the flood plain, or re-routing the Byway higher on the slope above the existing alignment. Both options were dropped from detailed analysis, in part because these same alternatives had been examined as part of ea rlier proposals to improve the 14-mile unpaved section of the Mountain Loop Highway. There is a long history of studies, proposed improvements, public involvement, and environmental concerns on the Mountain Loop (see Chapter 3, Recreation – Road History, and project files). Despite years of analysis and considerable public participation, any further work on the proposals of the 1990’s were dropped due to a variety of environmental and public concerns (including lack of support for paving this segment of the Byway and a request for a broader range of alternatives). The ID Team for this flood repair project also dropped these options from detailed study: it was determined that both alternate routes would be both very expensive and likely have high resource concerns, including: direct and adverse effects to the values of the Wild and Scenic River (including the free flowing condition and water quality); potential impacts to LSR and critical habitat for northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet; and high potential for delivery of silt and sediments into a river system with listed fish species. Experience has shown that large cut-banks and fill-slopes on steep canyons are frequently problematic: portions of Roads 4096 and 4080 were closed some years ago due to problems with steep slopes, stream crossings, and soil movement

Close the Damaged Section Permanently and Build a Trail Another alternative considered but eliminated from detailed study included blocking this section of the Mountain Loop, permanently at Monte Cristo Lakes (west end) and Bedal Creek (east end); constructing parking and turn-around areas at the ea ch end of the road segment; and building a trail on the closed piece of road.

In response to comments received during the 30-day comment period: A few respondents strongly requested that an alternative to close this section of the Mountain Loop Byway and create a trail be analyzed in detail. Therefore, the description of this option has been modified somewhat from the Preliminary EA and brief information added regarding the work that would be required to close the road and develop either a hiker-only trail or a barrier-free trail.

The ID Team evaluated several scenarios within the theme of “close the road, build a trail.” The following is a brief summary of the construction that would likely be needed to accomplish this alternative. Refer to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2309 for additional trail design requirements and guidelines; also see Universal Access to Outdoor Recreation, A Design Guide (PLAE, Inc. 1993). To close the damaged sections of the Mountain Loop prior to trail construction, access would need to be provided for heavy machinery to: ƒ remove culverts and replace them with other drainage structures, depending upon the type of trail to be built (e.g. fords, foot bridges, etc.);

37 Alternative Development Process

ƒ stabilize the slopes around the damaged sites, pulling road fill back from the edge closest to the river; ƒ create adequate drainage for the abandoned road (to prevent other resource damage); and ƒ decommission the road surface and haul away excess materials.

To provide this access, road repairs would be needed to circumvent either the damaged site at milepost 33.6 (on the upper end) or milepost 35.6 (at the lower end). This reconstruction would need to be wide enough and strong enough handle the heavy equipment and hauling of excess soils and materials off site, and would involve the same work as described for the Proposed Action (with the same effects. The only difference would be that the road constructed for the decommissioning would be obliterated following use. (In addition, the short segment of Road 4080 would need to be decommissioned, with culverts removed, etc. as once this segment of the Mountain Loop were closed, there would be no way to access Road 4080 for maintenance. New trail could be built on the roadbed to tie into Trail # 647 to Goat Lake.) Once the 2.4 mile segment of the Mountain Loop and Road 4080 were closed, a trail would be developed on the old road bed. Parking and turn-around areas constructed at or near Monte Cristo Lakes and Bedal Creek—which would involve clearing, leveling, and surfacing (with crushed rock) an area large enough to accommodate all anticipated traffic. These cleared areas would be located within Riparian Reserve/LSR (Monte Cristo Lakes) and Riparian Reserve/Skagit Wild and Scenic River; tree removal may impact critical habitat for spotted owl and murrelet. Trail construction on the old road bed would vary, depending upon the objective level for the trail. For all types of trails, the road damage at milepost 33.6 (road surface and fill washed out to bedrock) and bedrock cliff at the upper end of the site would be problematic. Appropriate work would need to be done to meet Forest Service standards for trail clearing and tread widths, depending on the type of trail (FSH 2309.18). For a barrier-free trail, options the ID Team explored were: build a bridge around the rock cliff,; attach a cantilevered trail to the bedrock cliff face, or blast the rock cliff down to bedrock to form a trail surface. Any bridge would be similar to the road bridge described in the Proposed Action, though smaller. Blasting to form a trail surface on bedrock could result in work at or below the high- water mark of the South Fork Sauk. Once past the rock face, the majority of trail would be on the old running surface of the road. However, a new segment of trail would have to be built around the repair site at Mile Post 35.6. For a barrier-free trail, all culverts would have to be retained or some other type of crossing developed (e.g., bridges). It is likely that drainage structures for major stream crossings would be similar to those needed for a road. All agency design criteria and standards for barrier-free trails13 would need to be met, including slope, switchback design, potential trail edging, and rest stops. A trail will a smaller footprint that would not be barrier-free could be built, either as described above (but narrower in width, as prescribed in the FSH) or built over the top of the bedrock cliff at MP 33.6. For this option, trail construction could to start near Monte Cristo Lakes for an easier degree of trail

13 Which would vary by degree of difficulty and whether trails were one-way or two-way; see FSH 2309.18, 2.33a, Exhibit 01.

38 Alternative Development Process

difficulty, or it could start closer to the rock face and switch-back up the hill to a point high enough to cross the cliff. The trail could then slope or switch-back back down to the road. As above, all work would need to meet agency design criteria. A non-barrier free trail could include concrete fords to accommodate foot traffic, and the old culverts could be removed. Depending upon the clearing width, these trails options would likely accommodate some winter users, but not snowmobiles (see FSH 2309). For example, a single-track cross-country trail is generally cleared to six to eight feet; double-track trails are cleared to 10 to 12 feet—which is close to the width of the proposed new road bridge at milepost 33.6 (FSH 2309). Any trail constructed could tie into existing Trail 647, to Goat Lake (via new trail built on the former roadbed of Road 4080. Regardless of the type of trail constructed, this alternative was not analyzed in further detail because it would not meet the need for action. The Mountain Loop National Forest Scenic Byway is a major driving-for-pleasure destination, and the only loop drive—into the heart of the spectacularly scenic Cascade Mountains—of its type on the MBS. A permanent road closure would not provide motorized access during the spring, summer, and fall months as well as providing access for winter sports activities. Motorized access would provide various opportunities for recreating public that a closed road would not provide as well as providing administrative access (rated as a High Need, 2003 Roads Analysis) to the entire Mountain Loop area. Keeping the road open would provide reasonable access to private land owners, and restores historic and recreational opportunities. Dispersed camping could occur but access would be by trail. Closing this road and building a trail over the damaged segment would not meet the Forest Plan desired future condition for the Mountain Loop (USDA FS 1990 pg 4- 71, 4-74) or meet access needs (USDA FS 2003). Any trail option would involve road repair work at least mileposts 33.6 and/or 35.6 similar to that proposed to repair the Byway. Some trail options would require a bridge at MP 33.6; others would be likely to impact LSR, critical habitat for spotted owl and murrelet, and/or impact values of the Wild and Scenic River. Required stream crossings (culverts or bridges) may be similar to those required for a vehicle road. Development of parking lots/turn-around areas would have potentially adverse effects. Finally, no trail option would accommodate all traditional winter uses: snowmobiling would likely be eliminated due to narrow width and/or steep slopes with switchbacks, depending upon the type of trail.

Armor or Otherwise Protect the Remainder of the Road Finally, an alternative to armor or otherwise protect the entire stream bank along the Mountain Loop Highway from Monte Cristo Lake to Bedal Creek was eliminated from detailed study. The flood history (see Appendix B) shows that, at least at milepost 33.6, there have been more than one road failure, although other portions of the Mountain Loop have also experienced flood damage. An option to install rip-rap, concrete walls, or rock gabions was proposed. In armoring the road fill and stream bank, less money would be spent on future repairs, less sediment would be introduced to the river system, and there could be fewer effects to other aquatic resources—though there would be no guarantee that the road would not wash out in future flood events.

39 Alternative Development Process

This alternative was not developed further for the following reasons: the South Fork of the Sauk River from Elliot Creek to Bedal Creek and beyond is classified as Scenic under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Unless bedrock was present that would inhibit migration of the river, armoring the stream bank would affect the free-flowing characteristics of the river, counter to the direction of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1287(b)). Additionally, based on past experience, armoring a portion of the river banks can have an adverse effect downstream. Following an earlier flood event, the Federal Highway Administration installed a large rock deflector between mileposts 33.1 and 33.6. This deflector is approximately 100 – 200 feet in length and was constructed of large boulders, placed, perpendicular to the Mountain Loop Byway and extending into the river channel. The intent of this deflector was to increase the roughness of the channel on the right-bank, thus defusing river energy and preventing future road damage. This structure was successful in protecting the road adjacent to the deflector site; however, the energy of the river was transferred across and downstream. In addition to diverting river energy, the deflector constricted the river channel causing the channel to incise or down-cut. The combination of energy deflection and down-cutting caused accelerated erosion of the stream bank on the opposite side of the river, upstream of the road washout at Mile Post 33.6. (See Chapter 3, Channel Dynamics for more.) Finally, this river system is highly volatile, so trying to predict where the next washout might occur is not practical. Armoring banks along the entire 2.5 mile length of this segment of road would more than likely have an adverse effect on the river banks below Bedal Creek

From Comments Received on the Preliminary EA: A few respondents felt closing the Mountain Loop would help reduce open road miles in the watershed; however, this issue was not identified as a concern by either the Forest Service or the public during scoping. The open road density in the 78,800-acre Sauk River Forks fifth-field watershed is roughly 0.31 miles per square mile (USDA FS 1996, Watershed Analysis figures). Many current studies have indicated that open road densities greater than 1 mile per square mile have an adverse impact on wildlife use of areas; the road density in the project area is considerably lower. In addition, there are no Forest Plan standards for road density in any of the land allocations in the project area. Only MA 14 Deer and Elk Winter Range, has a prescribed road density (no more than 2 miles/square mile) (USDA FS 1990, pg 4-231). Finally, there are very few roads other than the Mountain Loop in the repair site vicinity; they include Road 4710 (Monte Cristo Road) which is closed to public vehicles, the 0.75 mile of Road 4080 at Elliott Creek (the rest was closed and converted to trail), and Road 4096 from Bedal Creek, which is partially open and drivable for about 2 miles. While this segment of the Mountain Loop Byway has been closed to vehicle traffic since the October 2003 flood event, it remains a system road and is still considered a road. The Proposed Action would neither increase nor decrease system road miles in the Tier 1 Key Watershed.

40 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 1 - No Action Selecting the No Action alternative would mean no road repairs on the Mountain Loop Highway would be completed. The road would be permanently blocked14 at Monte Cristo Lake and at Bedal Creek, with turn-arounds designed into the system. No parking area would be provided. No upgrading of drainage systems (larger culverts, etc.) to meet current Forest Plan standards would be implemented. Work on other projects in the vicinity of the Mountain Loop Byway, with signed decisions, would be expected to continue. Implementing the No Action Alternative for this project would not preclude other reasonably foreseeable actions in the area. The remaining road prism would exist as it does today: obliteration would not occur, culverts would not be removed, ditches would not be removed, eroded road segments would not be pulled back, and erosion control measures would not be implemented. Recreation use and access to favorite, traditional dispersed use areas (such as the old Chocwich campground) could continue for some period of time, though access would be by foot only. Future foot access over the damaged road portions could become more of a scramble if any future high-water events erode the remaining roadfill. The estimated costs for implementing this alternative would be approximately $10,000 to $50,000. This money would be used to physically block the roads, install road closure signs at both the beginning of the Mountain Loop and at the road block, and to provide vehicle turnaround areas.

Alternative 2–Proposed Action: Realign Road Away from River at Damaged Sites, Construct 60-Foot Bridge at Milepost 33.6 Alternative 2 is the proposed action, as described in Chapter 1. Implementing this alternative would include: realigning the Scenic Byway away from the South Fork Sauk River channel (and as far away as topography allows at the milepost 33.6 and 35.6 sites). A 60-foot, concrete free-span bridge would be built at the milepost 33.6 site over a portion of the road washout adjacent to a cliff; and all culverts would be upgraded to meet current Forest Plan standards (USDA, USDI 1994, pg C-33). The large rock rip-rap that would be used in implementing this action would be less than the rock that was removed by the October 2003 flood. Any excess/damaged road fill material would be removed to prevent it from washing downstream in future flood events. A total of about 0.95 acre of vegetation would be removed in the road realignment. All mitigation measures listed below would be included in the implementation of Alternative 2. The site-specific, proposed repairs at each damage site are as described under Proposed Action (see Chapter 1), and listed below. The figures are not repeated in this chapter, but are referenced. The estimated costs for implementing Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) would be approximately $500,000 to $700,000. This money would be used to reconstruct the roads, including the bridge at MP 33.6, remove excess fill material from the old road, and reestablish vegetation on bare soils.

14 Blocking the road permanently may include one or all of the following actions: trenching the road surface, placing a dirt berm adjacent to the trench, installation of a gate, and installation of concrete blocks. 41 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 2–Proposed Action: Repair at Milepost 33.1 If Alternative 2 were implemented, the flood damage at milepost 33.1 would include re-aligning a 150 to 200 foot section of the road about eight feet into the slope of the hill, on the uphill side of the road and away from the river. The road width would remain the same (16 feet wide plus required curve- widening), with a crushed rock surface. See Figure 6, page 9. If necessary (e.g. if the cut-slope is high and steep enough), a rock buttress would be built at the toe of the new cut-slope; see sketch included in Figure 6. A new, 18-inch culvert (to current Forest Plan standards) would be installed on the upper (Verlot) end of the re-alignment. The over-steepened slope of the failed road shoulder and road edge (as pictured below) would be evened out (pulled back) and the excess material either hauled offsite or reused in the road repair work, to lessen the chance of further loss of fill material into the river. No rock (rip-rap) or work adjacent to the South Fork Sauk River would be needed at this site. A total of about 0.10 acres of vegetation would be disturbed. Trees to be felled are small hardwoods and a few conifers, all less than eight inches diameter at breast height (DBH)). As the trees to be cut are too small for use as in-stream woody debris or to armor stream banks, they would either be left on-site to improve terrestrial woody habitat or hauled off-site and stockpiled at a rock pit near Bedal Creek and used as firewood. All disturbed sites would be seeded, or seeded/mulched as per the mitigation measures.

Alternative 2–Proposed Action: Repair at Milepost 33.6 At milepost 33.6—where a bedrock cliff limits moving the Mountain Loop totally out of the river channel—the Alternative 2 proposed repair would include construction of a single-lane road around the point of the bedrock cliff, at the upper end of the damage. The total length of the proposed repair would be about 400 feet. Refer to Figure 9 to Figure 13, Chapter 1. A roughly 60-foot long (14-feet wide), concrete, free-span bridge would be built adjacent to the cliff area, spanning a portion of the washed out road. Figure 19, below, shows an example of the style of bridge that would installed at MP 33.6, Alternative 2. Bedrock would be used as foundation for the bridge abutments. A hydraulic rock breaker (hoe ram) and rock drill would be used to level/prepare the bedrock, so that the abutments can be tied to and stabilized on bedrock. Concrete wing or retaining walls would be built at each end of the bridge, extending beyond the bridge. The retaining walls would support the road to the bridge abutments and also retain fill material at the bridge approaches and prevent the fill from being washed-out. Large riprap (roughly 4.5 to 5-feet in diameter, and weighing from 8,000 to 14,000 pounds) would be used to protect the fill just upstream of the first wing wall. The total length of the rip-rap base may be up to 50 feet, to key the rock in at a large upstream boulder and along the bedrock and retaining wall; also see Figure 10 and Figure 13). The bridge would be located above the ordinary high water mark; see Figure 12. Downstream from the cliff area, the remainder of the damaged road section would be relocated away from the river to the extent possible—typically 10 to 20 feet—while still keeping a reasonable running surface alignment for drivers. In this area, a single-lane roadway, 14-feet in width would be

42 Alternatives Considered in Detail

constructed. Once the road has been realigned, any road fill material within the damaged portion of road that was not washed away in the 2003 flood would be pulled back and hauled away from the river. Figure 19–Sample of Type of Bridge Proposed for MP 33.6, Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

A ditch would be installed the length of the repair on the uphill side (with the exception of the bridged area) and a new culvert added upstream of the first bridge approach rail end. The road running surface would be surfaced with crushed rock. An estimated 0.25 acres would be disturbed at the MP 33.6 repair site, a result of realigning the Mountain Loop into the hillside. .A few trees, mainly hardwoods with a few, small conifers, would be removed; all trees to be felled are less than 8 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). As they are too small for use in streams as woody debris or to armor disturbed stream banks, the trees that are felled would either be left on-site to improve terrestrial woody habitat or hauled and stockpiled at a rock pit near Bedal Creek for use as firewood. A ll disturbed sites would be seeded, or seeded/mulched as per the mitigation measures.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Repair at Milepost 34.8 The proposed action (Alternative 2) at the damage site at milepost 34.8 includes moving approximately 200 feet of the road about eight feet into the slope, on the uphill side of the road and away from the river (see Figure 15, page 17). The road running-surface would be the same width as in the past (16 feet wide plus required curve-widening) and again be surfaced with crushed rock. A ditch would be installed along the length of the repair. The vertical, over-steepened edge of the road would be pulled back to facilitate re-vegetation. No rip- rap would be installed along the river edge because large rock is already present within the channel. An estimated 0.10 acres would be disturbed at the MP 34.8 repair site. Mov ing the road into the hillside would involve removal of a few trees, mostly hardwoods with a few conifers. All trees to be felled are less than 8 inches in diameter DBH except for one hemlock, 18 inches DBH. The 18 inch hemlock can be used as large wood in local streams or used to armor disturbed stream banks. The remaining trees to be removed are not large enough to be used in the local streams nor can they be used to armor disturbed stream banks. If feasible, trees to be felled may be left on-site to improve terrestrial woody habitat, or

43 Alternatives Considered in Detail

hauled and stockpiled at a rock pit near Bedal Creek and used as firewood. All bare soil would be seeded with native seed, if available, and mulched with weed-free material.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Repair at Milepost 35.6 If implemented, Alternative 2 would include repair of the damage at MP 35.6, which would include realigning about 400 feet of the road approximately 20 feet into the slope of the hill, away from the river. Where the road fill and road was eroded to bedrock, large rock would be keyed in-between existing bedrock veins that protrude into the river, to support the new road. This method—placing large rock on bedrock—would prevent the undermining that could happen if rock were placed in the streambed. A hydraulic rock breaker (hoe ram) would be used to shape the bedrock into a relatively flat surface for these large, placed rocks. The elevation of the base of the rock would be out of the bank-full elevation of the river; the only time water would touch these large rocks would be during high water (over the bank) events. The realigned road would be in-sloped, without a ditch, to keep the road prism narrower. If needed to reduce sloughing, ecology blocks would be placed up to four feet high at the base of the cut slope. The road-running surface would be approximately 14 feet wide plus required curve-widening, and surfaced with crushed rock. A new culvert would be installed at each end of the excavation section. Any road fill material (within the damaged portion of the road) that was not washed away in the flooding would be pulled back and hauled away from the river. As the hillside is very steep at this location, moving the road roughly 20-feet horizontally into the hillside would impact about 0.5 acres of vegetation (an estimated maximum of 100-foot slope distance from the current road edge). Field reconnaissance found that the area affected is a young stand, with the trees up to 18-inches DBH, except for seven legacy trees: four hemlocks 20 to 35-inches DBH, two Douglas-fir 21 to 30-inches DBH, and one cedar, about 48-inches DBH. Trees in the young stand (mainly hardwoods with a few conifers, 8 inches in diameter or less) are too small for use as woody debris in streams or for use armoring local stream banks. They would either be left on-site to improve terrestrial woody habitat or moved and stockpiled at a rock pit near Bedal Creek for firewood. The large trees to be removed would be retained (off-site) for use as local, in-stream large woody debris; the Forest Service may use these trees at the White Chuck ERFO sites. All bare soil would be seeded with native seed, if available, and mulched with weed-free material.

44 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 3: Realign Away from River at Mileposts 33.1 and 34.8, Construct Long Multi-span Bridges at Mileposts 33.6 and 35.6 For the repair sites at Mile Post 33.1 and 34.8, the action proposed under Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2. Proposed repairs at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6 differ from Alternative 2: ƒ the concrete bridge at MP 33.6 would be a long-multi-span bridge over the entire length of the damaged roadway (roughly 300-feet long, and built with probably three spans. See below, for a more-detailed description. ƒ at MP 35.6: instead of realigning the road into the steep-slope of the hillside, a 4-span concrete bridge, about 400 feet in length would be built across the entire length of the washed-out road. See below for detailed descriptions. At both MP 33.6 and 35.6, the new roadbed would be essentially in the same location as the old road, but the bridge superstructures would be elevated above the river channel, allowing any future high water events to flow under them. Unlike Alternative 2, no realignment into the hillside or removal of vegetation at these two sites would be needed. See discussion below for more details on the Alternative 3 proposed bridges. All mitigation measures listed below would be included in the implementation of Alternative 3. The estimated costs for implementing Alternative 3 would be approximately $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. The funds would be used to reconstruct the roads and build two, multi-span bridges; remove fill material from the old road that could still fall into the river; and revegetate bare soils.

Alternative 3: Proposed Repair at Milepost 33.1 If Alternative 3 were implemented, proposed repairs at this first damage site would be as described in Alternative 2; page 42. See Chapter 1, Figure 5 and Figure 6 for photos of the damage and proposed repair.

Alternative 3: Proposed Repair at Milepost 33.6 Unlike Alternative 2 proposal for the road damage at MP 33.6, implementation of Alternative 3 would include construction of a long, multi-span concrete bridge over the entire length of the washed out area. The bridge would be slightly longer than the 250 feet of washed-out roadway, or roughly 300 feet in length, to accommodate bridge abutments. The bridge abutments and support structures (pillars) would be tied to bedrock. Figure 20, below, shows an example of the type of bridge that would be installed if Alternative 3 were implemented (for both MP 33.6 and 35.6—see below). The photo shows a six-span bridge; however, at MP 33.6, the bridge would likely be three spans. Figure 21 shows a plan view of the proposed repair, Alternative 3. To prepare for installation of the bridge and prevent further input of silt and sediment into the South Fork Sauk, the damaged ends of the road next to the river (where slopes are over-steepened through erosion) would be pulled back and hauled away. Any remaining road fill and road surfacing within the damaged segments of the road would also be removed.

45 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Figure 20–Example of a Multi-Span Bridge, Proposed for MP 33.6 and 35.6, Alternative 3 Note: unlike this photo, at both MP 33.6 and 35.6, a hillside would parallel the one side of the bridge.

A temporary dike of gravel bags, or other clean material would be built about 15-feet out from the streamside edge of the Mountain Loop for the entire length of the road washout, to separate the work area from the active channel of the river. Coarse roadbed material may also be needed to be brought in for a temporary access road, which would be constructed in this diked-in work area. Both the dike and the temporary road would be removed upon completion of the bridge construction. At each abutment and at approximately 100-foot intervals along the length of the washout, seven to eight foot-diameter shafts would be drilled into the bedrock, to a depth of five to ten feet, to support the four-five foot diameter, circular piers (as in Figure 20, above). Caps would then be built on the piers, and the superstructure girders and bridge decking would be placed (using large cranes, etc. working from the temporary road in the dry, diked area). Finally, the bridge would be finished with bridge and approach railings. The construction work would probably occur over at least two seasons with two to three months for drilling for the piers (total for both MP 33.6 and 35.6). The finished road running-surface would be the same width as the existing roadway: basically single lane, 14 feet wide. Any other bare soil areas would be seeded with native seed if available, otherwise with desirable non- native seed; areas would be mulched with weed-free straw, as per Forest Plan BMPs. Also see Mitigation Measures, Management Practices and Requirements, and Monitoring for Action Alternatives 2 and 3, page 50.

46 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Figure 21–Alternative 3, Proposed Repair at Milepost 33.6

Begin New Bridge 14 Ft X 300 Ft (3 Spans)

47 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 3: Proposed Repair at Milepost 34.8 If Alternative 3 were implemented, proposed repairs at the milepost MP 34.8 damage site would be as described in Alternative 2, See description, above, and also Chapter 1, Figure 14 and Figure 15 for photos of the damage and proposed repair. Alternative 3: Proposed Repair at Milepost 35.6 Like the Alternative 3 proposed for milepost 33.6, at the MP 35.6 damaged site, a long, concrete multi- span bridge would be constructed over the entire length of the washed out area. As nearly 350 feet of roadway washed out, the bridge would be slightly longer to accommodate the bridge abutments, or roughly 400-feet in length. The bridge would be similar in design at that pictured in Figure 20, above but would likely be four spans (not six, as shown). The bridge abutments and support structures (pillars) would be tied to bedrock. See Figure 22, below, for a plan view. To prepare for installation of the bridge and prevent further input of silt and sediment into the South Fork Sauk, the damaged ends of the road next to the river (where slopes are over-steepened through erosion) would be pulled back and hauled away. Any remaining road fill and road surfacing within the damaged segments of the road would also be removed. A temporary dike of gravel bags, or other clean material would be built about 15-feet out from the streamside edge of the Mountain Loop for the entire length of the road washout, to separate the work area from the active channel of the river. Coarse roadbed material may also be needed to be brought in for a temporary access road, which would be constructed in this diked-in work area. Both the dike and the temporary road would be removed upon completion of the bridge construction. At each abutment and at approximately 100-foot intervals along the length of the washout, seven to eight foot-diameter shafts would be drilled into the bedrock, to a depth of five to ten feet, to support the four-five foot diameter, circular piers (as in Figure 20, above). Caps would then be built on the piers, and the superstructure girders and bridge decking would be placed (using large cranes, etc. working from the temporary road in the dry, diked area). Finally, the bridge would be finished with bridge and approach railings. The finished road running-surface would be the same width as the existing roadway: basically single lane, 14 feet wide. Any other bare soil areas would be seeded with native seed if available, otherwise with desirable non- native seed; areas would be mulched with weed-free straw, as per Forest Plan BMPs. Also see Mitigation Measures, Management Practices and Requirements, and Monitoring for Action Alternatives 2 and 3, page 53.

48 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Figure 22 – Alternative 3, Proposed Repair for Milepost 35.6

49 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Mitigation Measures, Management Practices and Requirements, and Monitoring for Action Alternatives 2 and 3 The following mitigation measures and standard management practices and requirements for the protection of the resources are an integral part of both action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3), and are considered in the effects analysis in Chapter 3.

Wildlife 1. To minimize the likelihood of adverse effects to marbled murrelet, all project activities would occur between two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset, from May 1 to September 15 each year. Noise generating work activities could start as early as May 1, so that the instream timing restrictions to mitigate fisheries impacts can be met. Although no marbled murrelet nesting habitat occurs adjacent to any of the four repair sites, nesting habitat is present within 60 yards of these sites and nesting marbled murrelets could be affected by project noise. During the incubation periods, noise generated by project activities could result in incubating murrelets flushing off the nest, exposing eggs to predation or leading to egg mortality due to cooling. After chicks have hatched, noise generated by project activities could interrupt adults feeding chicks, potentially leading to lower survival of chicks if adults did not deliver food to the chick. As a result of these possible reactions, noise disturbance above ambient levels could result in adverse affects to marbled murrelets. The timing restrictions that would be implemented would reduce potential adverse effects to post- incubating murrelets, but would not mitigate possible effects on incubating birds. In the post- incubation stage, 90 percent of feedings by adults occur within 2 hours of sunrise and sunset; therefore, mitigation measure would significantly reduce the potential disruption of feeding. During the incubating season, adults would be at the nest site continuously, so the mitigation measure would be ineffective. Although this mitigation measure would reduce the possibility of adverse effects to marbled murrelets, implementation of either Alternative2 or 3 could result in adverse effects to marbled murrelets with, or without, this measure.

Soils, Aquatics (Water Quality), Fisheries The following measures are compiled from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Opinion and Conference Report (August 16, 2005) and USDC, (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service Biological and Conference Opinion (October 28, 2005). Both are available in the project files. 1. Excess material (spoils) shall be disposed of and stabilized so it does not enter flowing waters, stream channels or other water bodies. 2. Erosion-control methods shall be used to prevent silt-laden water from entering streams or other water bodies. These may include, but are not limited to: straw bales, silt fencing, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel-filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas. Sediment traps should be incorporated into ditches. 3. If wet weather conditions during project operations result in transporting sediment to flowing waters, stream channels or other water bodies, especially those having a high potential to deliver to 50 Alternatives Considered in Detail

salmonid habitats, cease operations until the weather conditions improve, unless delaying operations would increase the risk of storm or high flow erosion. Coordination with Forest Service aquatic specialists should be part of this decision process. 4. All disturbed ground shall be reclaimed using appropriate best management practices. Retain measures to prevent sediment from reaching streams until the soil is secure. If appropriate, native species should be used in revegetation. Disturbed ground where runoff has the potential to drain into stream channels shall be revegetated or protected from surface erosion by seeding, mulching, or other methods prior to the fall rainy season. Within one year after project completion, disturbed stream banks would be revegetated with woody vegetation to maintain soil stability and provide shade and future sources of instream large woody debris (LWD). Any seed used for revegetation shall be tested using standards of the Association of Official Seed Analysis (WSCIA 2003) and pass State standards for noxious weeds prior to use (WAC 16-302-100). 5. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward of the 100-year floodplain to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to the stream. 6. Stream banks shall be properly sloped to an angle of stability (natural repose) when removing culverts. 7. Leave all non-treated wood in the stream/lake/wetland (a measure designed to protect existing large woody debris in the stream channel). 8. Have hazardous spill clean-up materials and trained operators on site. Fuel trucks must also carry spill clean-up materials. 9. All machinery maintenance involving potential contaminants (fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, etc.) shall occur at a site greater than 150 feet from stream channels, water bodies, or wetlands, or at a site approved by a Forest Service aquatic specialist. Equipment operated instream should be cleaned before beginning operations below the bankfull elevation to remove all external oil, grease, dirt, and mud. 10. Prior to starting work each day, check all machinery for leaks (fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, etc.) and make all necessary repairs before leaving the vehicle staging area and entering a Riparian Reserve. 11. The disposition of down wood, such as blowdown or felled hazard trees would be determined based on the Forest woody debris policy with priority given to retaining onsite or stockpiled for use in restoration projects. 12. Minimize channel bank grading in order to re-vegetate and restore bank conditions. 13. Boundaries of the clearing limits associated with site access and construction shall be flagged to prevent ground disturbance of critical riparian vegetation, wetlands, and other sensitive sites beyond the flagged boundaries. 14. A site inspection shall be performed by a qualified biologist (USFS or WDFW) or their representative after project completion to assure that the project is progressing as planned and that there are no unintended consequences to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. 51 Alternatives Considered in Detail

15. Detailed inspections shall be made with the onset of the rainy season and immediately after the first heavy rain following construction. Any necessary corrective measures must be evaluated with respect to their urgency and potential effects on listed species, and must be agreed upon by the Forest biologist or their representative before implementation. 16. Post-construction measures requiring ground disturbing work likely to cause erosion shall be implemented during the dry season of the year but still must fall within the WDFW spawn time work windows. 17. Move large woody debris at all streamside construction sites, and incorporate it into riprap where feasible, if this would protect structures and improve stream habitat. 18. During construction, all erosion controls should be inspected daily during the rainy season and weekly during the dry season to ensure they are working adequately. If inspection shows that any of the erosion controls are ineffective, work crews should be mobilized immediately to make repairs, install replacements, or install additional controls as necessary. Sediment should be removed from erosion controls once it has reached 1/3 of the exposed height of the control. 19. Any trees greater than 12 inches DBH to be felled within reach of a stream shall be considered for felling toward the stream and left in place or utilized to armor disturbed stream banks, if feasible. If a Forest Service aquatic specialist determines the trees are not needed to meet current or future instream LWD objectives, they may be removed for use in instream aquatic improvement projects or other administrative uses, left on-site to improve terrestrial large woody habitat, or sold, after interdisciplinary review. 20. Stationary power equipment (e.g., generators, cranes) operated within 150 feet of any stream, water body, or wetland should be diapered to prevent leaks. 21. When breaking up natural (boulder/bedrock) or man-made (bridge decking, piers, or abutments) materials using hydraulic breaker, or test drilling, the following measures shall be done (when appropriate): a) preventing spoils from operations from entering the active channel; and b) monitor the under water sound/vibration effects of hydraulic breaker operations at the various horizontal distances from the site using underwater sound-detection equipment. See Monitoring on page 53. 22. Stabilize all work areas within three days following the construction period. 23. Site restoration and clean-up includes protection of bare earth by seeding, planting, mulching, and fertilizing. All damaged areas at the project site are to be restored to pre-work conditions including restoration of the pre-project channel bank slope and contours. 24. All projects shall comply with State water-quality standards (RCW 90.48) set forth by the WDOE. 25. After use, all temporary roads shall be closed and flood-proofed or shall be decommissioned. Note: The 2005 version of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the USDA Forest Service, Region 6 serves as a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for all the activities it covers (BO, page 12). All timing requirements for construction activities will be in accordance with the MOU.

52 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Heritage Resources The following requirement comes from 36 CFR 800, implementing the National Historic Preservation Act.

1. If a previously unidentified heritage resource is discovered during project implementation, or if an identified resource is affected in an unanticipated way, the Forest Heritage Specialist will be notified and the Forest will fulfill its responsibilities in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement between the Forest Service and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding cultural resource management on National Forests in the State of Washington (1997).

Botany 1. To prevent noxious weeds from entering the disturbed areas where reconstruction would occur, seed exposed soil with the following seed mix to prevent infestation by weed seed: ƒ Soft white winter wheat (Cultivar of Triticum aestivum) @ 50 lbs per acre. ƒ Slender wheat grass (Elymus trachycaulis) @ 20 lbs per acre. ƒ Annual ryegrass (Lolium multiforum) @ 20 lbs. per acre. ƒ Austrian winter peas (Pisum sativum arvense) @ 5 lbs per acre. There are no sources for native, watershed-specific, seed mixes. The seed mixes prescribed above are carefully researched to germinate well, grow quickly, and then die out over a 2 to 4 year period as the native vegetation becomes established. 2. Construction equipment should be free of weeds and weed seeds before entering the project sites. 3. All gravel, fill, quarry material, and borrow material must be weed free. 4. All straw used as mulch must be weed free and weed seed free. 5. Fertilizer is not recommended.

Recreation and Public Use and Access 1. Construction haul traffic would be restricted to weekdays only, with no work on holidays. Required Monitoring For the proposed repairs at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6, to meet the requirements of Reasonable and Prudent Measures from the October 28, 2005 Biological and Conference Opinion from NMFS and the Terms and Conditions from the August 16, 2005 Biological Opinion and Conference Report from USFWS: monitoring of turbidity and concussive disturbance to fish will be done. Refer to the specific Opinions for complete details (available in the project files). At the repair sites at MP 33.6 and 35.6, background and project-generated turbidity will be measured at various distances from the project site and monitored while any in-water work is occurring; see Opinions for details. In addition, a hydrophone will be used to measure/monitor concussive disturbance to fish from the hoe ram. Measurements will be taken at various distances from the hammering site, and within the wetted channel, with data collected at each distance. A report documenting implementation of the proposed action and compliance with terms and conditions will be prepared and submitted to both agencies.

53 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Comparison of Alternatives Table 1, page 55, displays the three alternatives considered in detail for repair of the four damaged sites on the Mountain Loop National Forest Scenic Byway. Alternatives are compared in such a way that the differences among them both in terms of the significant issues and environmental impacts are highlighted for the public and the Responsible Official.

54 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Table 1--Comparison of Alternatives Alternative 1- No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Realign Alternative 3 Realign Road, Long Bridge at

Road, 60-foot bridge at MP 33.6 MP 33.6 and 35.6 Past experience indicates not repairing roads A total of 0.95 acres of trees and vegetation would A total of 0.4 acres of trees and vegetation would be increases sediment loading. be removed. All bare soil would be revegetated (see removed. All bare soil would be revegetated (see At sites 33.1 and 34.8, road fill would continue to Mitigation Measures). None of these trees now Mitigation Measures). None of these trees now be lost during and after flood events. shade the active channel, so no effect to stream shade the active channel, so no effect to stream temperature. temperature. Potential Expected sediment input to the South Fork Sauk As mitigated, about 1.8 cubic yards (under four With less road realigment and two long bridges, but Effects to is 369 cubic yards (498 tons). If this happens all at once in a flood event, there would be enough pickup-trucks loads) of sediment would be expected a temporary work road at two MPs, an estimated Fish and Fish to enter the South Fork Sauk, per year for the first 2 43.6 cubic yards of sediment would be expected to Habitat: change in sediment load to cause channel changes. Spawning areas could be affected. years. Sediment input after that would diminish to enter the South Fork Sauk, per year for the first 2 Soil and Pools for rearing would likely decrease in insignificant amounts. years. Sediment input after that would diminish to Vegetation volume. Introduced sediment would not alter channel insignificant amounts. Disturbed If material erodes over time, there would be no processes or aquatic habitat; water quality would be Introduced sediment would not alter channel measurable maintained. processes or aquatic habitat; water quality would be Magnitude, maintained. Duration of There would be no project effects to fish Any project suspended sediment would not be populations or habitat (no repairs would be done) measurable 10 miles from project site, at confluence Any project suspended sediment would not be Sedimentation with White Chuck River. measurable 10 miles from project site, at confluence Magnitude, Repairs would have some minor short term effects with White Chuck River. Duration of (<1 year) but no long term direct or indirect effects Repairs would have some minor short term effects Impacts from (>5 years or more). (<1 year) but no long term direct or indirect effects Concussive Repairs at sites 33.1 and 34.8 would not adversely (>5 years or more). Noise affect bull trout, salmon, or critical habitat. The effects to fish and fish habitat are the same as Vibrations Repairs at MP 33.6 and 35.6 have a Likely to Alternative 2. Adversely Affect determination for noise, for an The determinations of Likely to Adversely Affect and estimated 2 to 3 months. Incidental Take Statements for repairs at MP 33.6 Incidental Take statements were issued (see and 35.6 are the same as in Alternative 2. Biological and Conference Opinion 10/28/05).

55 Alternatives Considered in Detail

No repairs would be done, thus no project Repairs proposed at MP 34.8 and 35.6 would not Same as Alt. 2 for MP 33.1and 34.8. effects. occur within the bed and bank of the South Fork At MP 33.6 and 35.6, the temporary work road (with Further encroachment on the roadbed by river Sauk River, thus would not meet the definition of a temporary dike) would be in place for very short-term could result in continued sediment delivery from water resources project. MP 33.1 is outside W&S (est. 5 months total for construction of bridges) and eroding roadfill. River corridor. would not be considered an impact to free-flowing The river has already migrated to bedrock at MP Proposed repairs at MP 33.6 include about 50 feet condition of South Fork Sauk River. 33.6 and 35.6, therefore further migration inland of large rock rip-rap placed in locations where river Bridge abutments and piers would be tied to Potential would be limited to locations where bedrock is already constrained by bedrock. A Section 7(a) bedrock, with all work done above the river bed, and Effects to not exposed. Determination (completed, see Appendix D) found above OHWM. Thus, repairs would not meet that project activity would not have a direct and Free-Flowing Effects to fish would be as discussed above. definition of a water resources project. Nature of S. adverse effect on the values for which the Sauk was Minor amounts of wildlilfe habitat (mixed conifer/ designated a Wild and Scenic River and would Free-flowing condition, water quality, and Fork Sauk protect and enhance free-flowing condition of the outstandlingly remarkable values would be protected River: decidous stand) would be impacted, but over and enhanced. time vegetation would re-establish on a portion of river. Effects on roadbed (gain of 0.9 ac. of young mixed stand). The large rip-rap at MP 33.6 (rocks 4.5 to 5 ft. Effects to fish and wildlife same as Alt. 2. Conditions of Trees colonizing roadbed may be stunted due to diameter, weighing 8-14,000 lbs) would not impede Visually, the two multi-span bridges would be very Free-Flow and compacted growing site. channel migration or free-flow because road work different in character compared to pre-flood Water Quality No change in grizzly bear core habitat as would be done above OHWM and rip-rap placed condition. However, there are other long bridges in where river is already constrained by bedrock. the general area. Bridges would not be seen by Direct and recreation use would remain at least 20 parties per week. recreational boaters Adverse Effects to fish would be as discussed above: minor Any effects to scenery would be minimal to none; short-term effects (less than 1 year), and no long- Effects on term direct or indirect effects. Outstandingly area not visible to recreational boaters. See wildlife discussion for re-vegetation. Effects to wildlife would, overall, be slight due to Remarkable small amount of habitat change and this change Values (Fish, occurring in very small areas, separated by relatively Scenery, large distances. See discussion below. Wildlife) The roadway and views would be similar in character to the pre-flood condition. Bare soils from road realignment would be revegetated, thus any impacts short-term. (Bare ground is not uncommon along umpaved portions of Mtn. Loop.)

56 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Up to 1 acres of additional loss of young Changes in wildlife habitat would be slight, Changes in wildlife habitat would be slight, mixed conifer/deciduous forest at and occuring in very small areas separated by occuring in very small areas separated by around the damaged sites would be relatively large distances. Implementation of relatively large distances. expected, from continued river migration. Alt. 2 would be expected to result in loss of up Implementation of Alt. 3 would be expected to About 1.9 acres of young mixed stands to 0.95 acres of mixed conifer/deciduous result in loss of up to 0.4 acres of mixed Other Issues: would develop on the former roadbed, for a forest habitat with the road realignment. conifer/deciduous forest habitat due to road Wildlife, net gain of 0.9 acres. Because project activities are expected to relocations. Effects to Trees colonizing roadbed may be stunted occur during the early nesting season for Effects on owls, murrelets and eagles, and LSR: due to compacted growing site. spotted owls and marbled murrlets, it it LSR would be the same as Alt. 3. possible that noise from work could result in Total Amount No change in grizzly bear core habitat as Of Habitat recreation use would remain at least 20 potential adverse effects through nest abando- Affected By parties per week. nment or increased predation. Effects would Repair be short-term (the construction period). No For owls and murrelets: loss of up to 1 ac. effect to critical habitat. Acitivities of owl critical habitat “captured” by the river, but no effect to constituent elements thus It is possible that project could disturb a few no effect. eagles from low-quality habitat for a short time period (2 weeks) in early Nov. No late-successional forest would be affected; all alts. would be neutral to the No late-successional forest would be affected; functioning of the LSR. all alts. would be neutral to the functioning of the LSR. With no repairs or watershed restoration, Road would be built on more stable base, not With long bridges, road at MP 33.6 and 35.6 portions of road would continue to washout replaced in kind, better able to withstand would be built above the 100-year flood level. during large flood events, with increased future flood events. Bridge at MP 33.6 tied to Bridge abutments and support piers tied to Road Design: sediment loading in river (see above). At bedrock, rest of road realigned away from bedrock, all outside the river channel, with all Potential for MP 33.6 and 35.6, the South Fork Sauk river, culverts would meet Plan standards. work completed above the OHWM. Sites to Wash River would eventually occupy the current Large foundation rock (4.5 to 5 ft. diameter Effects at MP 33.1 and 34.8 same as Alt. 2. Out Again: location of the Mt n. Loop. With no road and 8-14,000 lb. each) would offset power of Road Location maintence, the berms separating river from river, withstand 100 year flood events. Bridge for Each Site, road would eventually break down and be would be above OHWM; large rock would be Length of overtopped. The river would not migrate placed within river’s bed and banks, though Road Within much further into hillside at MP 33.6 or less than previous amount. Section 7(d) Ordinary High 35.6, but channel migration could occur up- Determination has been completed; see W&S Water Mark or downstream River. (OHWM) At MP 35.6, road built on large rock, keyed into exposed bedrock veins. All work above OHWM. Mtn. Loop sits on a terrace above river at MP 33.1 and 34.8. Costs15 $10,000 to $50,000 $500,000 to $700,000 $1,000,000 to $2,000,000

15 Costs to Close Road with Universally Accessible Trail = $350,000 to $450,000. (Includes parking, road/trail conversion, trail bridge at MP 33.6, and building trail around damage at MP 35.6. Does not include removing culverts, which would run $20,000 to 30,000 each.) Costs to Close Road with Trail (not accessible) = $320,000 to $350,000. (Includes parking and trail built over cliff at MP 33.6 and building trail around damage at MP 35.6. Does not include removing culverts, which would run $20,000 to 30,000 each.) Costs to tunnel through bedrock cliff at MP 33.6 rather than construct bridge = $1,500,000 plus.

57 Introduction

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Conseq u enc es

Introduction This chapter inc ludes a summary of the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the affected project area (th e baseline or existing condition) and the expected effects or changes to those environments, if any of the alternatives were to be implemented. This chapter provides the scien tific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives, presented in Table 1, page 55. Specialist Reports (available in th e project files, Darrington Ranger District) are incorporated by reference , and all specialists contributed directly to the preparation of this final document. The chapter is arranged by resource, with the affected environment discussion presented first, fo llowed by the estimated project effects (direct and indirect), and then estimated cumulative effects. Cum ulative effect those effects on the environment resulting from the incremental effect of the proposed Mountain Loop repairs when added to th e effects of other past p r ojec ts ( that still have resi dual or on-going effects); the estimated effects of other c urrent p roject; and the effects of reasonably forese eable future activities (federal or non-federal) (40 CF R Parts 1500-1508). See Appendix C for more on the cumulative effects analysis completed f or this p roject. The analysis was guided by the Jun e 24, 2005 memo Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis, Ex ecutive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality.

Since the Preliminary EA was released for the 30-day comment period: The order of discussion of resources affected by the proposed repairs has been adjusted, to better match the organization of other ERFO flood repair EA’s. Also, based on public comments on the Preliminary EA, the analysis of effects on aquatic resources, soils, and fisheries has been enhanced. In all cases, this enhanced analysis confirmed the original conclusions of minor, short-term or no effect as result of these project activities.

Aquatic Reso urces and S oils – Affected Environment

Project Area The main feature of the Mou ntain Loo p project a rea is the South Fork Sauk River, which flows generally north into the Sauk River. Th e South F ork Sauk River originates on the slopes of the M onte Cristo Peak and several other 6,000 to 7,000 foo t peaks that form the watershed divide between the Sauk and Skykomish Rivers. The peaks contain permanent snowfields and small glaciers that he lp maintain summer river flows; however, they do not exert the same influence as do the large glac iers in the White Chuck and Suiattle Rivers. The South Fork Sauk River sub-watershed is about 44.6 sq uare miles in size, or roughly 17 percent of the Upper Sauk River Watershed (which includes the Nor th Fork Sauk and the W hite Chuck Rivers). The project area typically receives 100 to 190 inches of precipitation pe r year, with a y early average of 130 inches. The South Fork Sau k River valley is a U-shaped glacial valley with steep side-slopes and a nar row flood plain that varies in width from 100 to 500 feet. Slopes in the project area range in steepnes s from

58 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Affected Environment

40 to 60% and are largely composed of dissected benches and rock out-crops. The South Fork Sauk River cuts deeply into the surrounding mountain slopes. While glaciers may have affected the river long ago, much of the current river valley is the result of fluvial deposition and landslide processes. There are deep glacial deposits along the margins of the upper valley. Lower in the river system where the valley broadens, there are large scale depositional features. The river moves back and forth in this narrow river valley, which measures 500 feet across at repair site 35.6—at the lower (eastern) end of the project area. This 500-foot width is fairly consistent up and down the river; however, the valley becomes narrow in places where bedrock and/or deep landslide deposits constrain the river. In general, the road is built on the terraces adjacent to the river; in some narrow sections, the road is adjacent to or on top of a narrow band of exposed bedrock. During the flooding of 2003, high water in most cases did not overtop this road terrace. Thus, it does not appear that the road constricts the active floodplain along these areas. In places, low berms have been built up between the river and the road. It appears these features are remnants of through-cutting when the initial road was built, augmented by past flood repairs and annual road maintenance (gravel bladed off the road, etc.). These berms reduce the frequency of high water events that result in water flowing down sections of the Byway that are at or near the elevation of the river bed. The berms act to constrain the river to some degree, even though the material in the berms (mostly cobbles, small boulders) is highly vulnerable to washing away during major floods.

Geology/Soils The upper project area—downstream from Monte Cristo Lakes (see Figure 3, page 2) and above 1,700 feet elevation—is characterized by steep, rocky side-slopes. Soils consist of continental glacial outwash, landslide deposits, and alluvium. These soils are found both as veneer over bedrock or under- lying the alluvium found in the river channel. The bedrock consists of Barlow Pass volcanic rocks to the north and fine-grained extrusive rocks to the south. The bedrock outcroppings change to phyllite just above Elliot Creek (near the damage site at milepost 33.6) and continue to the east along the south valley wall. Bedrock is exposed at points along the river. Two ledges of phyllite bedrock were exposed by the bank scour at MP 33.6. Ribs of bedrock are also exposed at milepost 35.6. Avalanche/debris chutes on the opposite canyon wall from the Mountain Loop run from the top of Twin Peaks (elevation 5,836 feet), northwest to southeast, and enter the South Fork Sauk River just upstream of MP 33.1 (at an elevation of 1,870 feet). Figure 23 on the page i60, shows avalanche chutes originating on Twin Peaks and entering the South Fork Sauk; the river channel is shown at the bottom of the photo (flows left to right). A large river bank failure shows in the lower center of the photo, at the toe of one chute. Soils in the Mountain Loop repair area are characterized as wet, fine textured silts/sands mixed with coarse gravel/cobble. Large (4 ½ foot to 5 foot diameter) boulders are found randomly throughout the alluvium in the valley bottom. The Mountain Loop Scenic Byway is located on a narrow terrace of alluvium adjacent to the valley wall on the south side of the of the river valley. Shallow soils or exposed bedrock are common on the steep slopes found in this sub-watershed. Water storage capacity within the sub-watershed is low and heavy rain and rain-on-snow storms produce rapid runoff. Within these drainages, there are small cirque lakes; however, with the exception

59 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Affected Environment

of Goat Lake (located up Elliott Creek and some miles above the road damage) these lakes are too small and high in elevation to store much runoff during storms. Figure 23– Avalanche Chutes, Twin Peaks Down to South Fork Sauk River

Hydrology The severity of the October 2003 storm resulted from heavy rain at a much higher elevation than usual. Normally, high-elevation snow (above 5,000) is buffered and protected from melting by low temperatures and the depth of the snow. However, September 2003 was the warmest on record. When the heavy rains arrived in October, they fell at elevations from 6,000 to 10,000 feet on bare ground or shallow snow, and on permanent snow fields and glaciers; the rain caused a rapid melt of ice.

In response to comments received during the 30-day comment period: The flood history of the project area has been enhanced; see the text below, and Chapter 1 and Appendix B – Historic Flood Damage.

Flood History The United States Geological Survey (USGS) operates a stream gauge located in the Sauk River, above the confluence with the White Chuck River; it measures the combined discharge of the South and North Fork Sauk Rivers. The Sauk River gauge has been in operation since 1918 except for a period between 1923 through 1928. The flow from the October 2003 flood event was large enough and of great enough intensity that the stream gauge was damaged. Table 2, below, lists the ten highest flows recorded at this gauge.

60 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Affected Environment

Table 2–Peak Flows of the South Fork Sauk River ** Date Flow, in Cubic Return Simple Return Probability of Comments Feet per Interval Interval Occurrence in Second (period of any Year, in record) Percent Feb. 29, 1917 24,400 --- 13 Year ------Dec. 12, 1921 29,100 --- 20 year 5.0 % --- Feb. 26, 1932 22,900 --- 10 Year ------Nov. 27, 1949 30,200 25 Year 27 Year 3.7 % --- Feb. 10, 1951 20,800 20 Year 9 Year ------Dec. 18, 1979 19,000 <20 Year 7 Year ------Dec. 26, 1980 40,100 100 Year 40 Year 3.125 % Prior to October 2003, largest event ever recorded. Nov. 24, 1990 24,600 24 Year 16 Year 6.25 % Largest flow between 1980 and 1990. Nov. 8, 1995 24,100 24 Year 11 Year 9.09 % --- Oct. 17, 2003 44,000 100 Year 80 Year 1.25 % Largest event ever recorded. **Notes for Table 2: Return interval is from Harding et al (1995), the Log Pearson III method, using records from 1918 to 1995. The simple return interval is based on simple probability: number of years (n) of record plus one, divided by rank (m) of the particular flood. The probability of occurrence in any year is calculated: n+l/m, using records from 1918 to 2004.

Flood Return Interval Two different methods have been used to calculate the return interval of the October 2003 storm: ƒ Based on the Log Pearson Type III16 method and looking at the period of record from 1917 to 1995, runoff from the October 2003 storm was larger than a 100-year event (R.W. Beck, 1995). ƒ Using simple probability and the record through and including October 2003, the storm produced runoff with an 80-year return interval. Regardless of the methodology, the October 2003 flood was the highest of record, in 80 years of record-keeping. Peak Flows, Probability of Occurrence For comparison purposes (average over the period of record, Table 2, above), the mean annual flow of the South Fork Sauk River is 900 cubic feet per second (CFS); the mean annual peak flow is 11,500 CFS. At a flow of 44,000 CFS, the October 2003 peak flow was almost fifty times larger than the average annual flow and four times the average peak flow. Looking at Table 2, above, all the floods listed caused significant watershed disturbance, including landslides, bank erosion, loss of riparian vegetation, and damage to various improvements (roads, trails, campgrounds, etc.). Of the largest recorded flood events on the Sauk River, three have occurred in the last 25 years. The probability of a 1980 or 2003 event occurring in any one year is 3.125 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively. The likelihood that a 1990 or 1995 event would occur in any one year is 6 percent of 9 percent respectively. The probability of a 100 year event occurring in a 25 year period is approximately 22.0 percent.

16 Log Pearson is a statistical method to determine the estimated size of an event by assessing the distribution of peak flows at a gauge site.

61 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Affected Environment

Climate change is altering the hydrology of the Cascade Mountains, and it will probably continue to do so. Predictions of higher winter runoff and a greater risk of flooding are common (Snover et al. 2005). The prediction is that rain, rather than snow, will fall over a much greater area of the Cascades in winter, producing more runoff. This could sustain higher flows in the main-stem-rivers and increase the risk of flooding in the lowlands. There are several factors that can determine if greater flooding actually occurs in the upper watersheds (within the National Forest). Historically, the highest peak flows resulted from rain-on-snow events, where heavy rain and low elevation snowmelt combine to create flooding. Factors that act to increase flows: ƒ A warmer climate may generate more intense winter storms than have occurred in the past; and ƒ Rain, rather than snow can fall on a greater proportion of the Cascades during winter storms. Factors that may mean less flow: ƒ With less mid-elevation snow pack and virtually no low elevation snow, there can be less snowmelt during storm events, or snowmelt may at the least occur at higher elevations that make up less of the watershed area; ƒ An extensive watershed restoration program that has included road decommissioning and storm proofing, and introducing large wood into stream channels; and ƒ Forest stands that are re-growing and approaching hydrologic maturity, a condition that reduces the effect of rain-on-snow storms. Predicting the net effect of these changing conditions is difficult; however, there is the possibility that there may be a higher frequency of moderate-sized floods. The design of transportation and other facilities should account for greater-than-normal runoff. Channel Dynamics Within the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway project area, the South Fork Sauk River channel is mostly coarse textured and has a stair-stepped gradient ranging from two to eight percent. Mid-channel islands are common, likely formed from river-transported material (cobbles and boulders). The finer sediments (sands and small gravels) are either transported through the river sys tem by high flows or are deposited on the channel margins and/or on the islands. Large wood plays a key role in trapping the sediments and in creating side channels where deposition can occur. Storms, such as the October 2003 event, can tear out stream banks, as well as island vegetation, and can move whole trees long distances. During the 2003 event, debris was pushed deeply into an old side channel across from the milepost 35.6 repair site, when deposition occurred on an island in mid-channel. Since 2003, this side channel has continued to expand during the relatively minor winter floods of 2004 and 2005. If this trend continues, most of the river flow could transfer to the other side of the valley, away from the Mountain Loop Byway at this location. Just upstream of the project area (above milepost 33.1), the South Fork Sauk River channel occupies a narrow valley. The river is fairly well entrenched and the river gradient ranges between 5 and 6 percent. The river banks are comprised of gravels and cobbles; the main channel substrate is comprised of both small and large boulders. Water flows over the boulders through much of this section of river, creating pools, chutes, and small cascades. This segment of confined river channel is considered to be

62 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Affected Environment

an area where sediments are transported through the system; however, large introductions of sediment can exceed the ability of the river to transport it. Sediment delivery is generally related to the size of a storm event. When there is a large sediment surge—as occurred in October 200317—the river channel may migrate across the valley because there is not enough river energy to move all the sediment. In the 2003 event, the South Fork Sauk migrated across the floodplain, toward the Mountain Loop Byway. Monte Cristo Lake is a significant feature of the South Fork Sauk River; refer to Figure 3–Detailed Map, Mountain Loop Proposed Road Repair Project Area, Chapter 1. Monte Cristo Lake is located about one-mile upstream (west) of the Mountain Loop project area. The lake was formed by glacial moraine deposits. As the South Fork Sauk flows downstream (east), sediment that is produced in the upper sub-watershed areas is trapped within the lake and in about 4,000 feet of channel upstream of the lake. Over time, Monte Cristo Lake has become very shallow due to this sediment deposition—as well as the activity of beavers—though it is still functioning as a depositional zone. Aerial photo evidence indicates that some deposition occurred during the October 2003 flooding. In t he river section below Elliott Creek (roughly milepost 33.6), the stream gradient drops to a 3 percent slope and the channel occupies a broader valley. Channel banks are composed of sand with cobbles, gravel, and small boulders. The main channel substrate is comprised of cobble and small boulders. Typically, this less confined, flatter gradient stream segment is where greater sediment deposition occurs. In this area, the river responds to sediment inputs by widening and/or braiding. During the 2003 flood event, the river channel did shift and spilt into multiple channels in some locations. Currently, there are two channels (the original channel and a second channel) that affect the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway within the project area. As summarized in Chapter 1, October 2003 Flood Event, the damage to the Mountain Loop Highway appears to have resulted from a large influx of debris (boulders, sediment, and woody debris) from an active avalanche chute that originates from the Twin Peaks area and enters the South Fork Sauk River just downstream of Monte Cristo Lake; see Figure 23, above. This avalanche chute experienced significant scour during the October 2003 floods (from heavy rainfall at high elevations) and it likely sent a pulse of material into the river. A large river bank failure, directly below another avalanche chute, nearly opposite the damage site at MP 33.1, also contributed material to the river channel. These events triggered a series of chain reactions that progressed downstream. Figure 24, page 64, shows an aerial view of the upper end of the project area. Visible are: the active avalanche chutes; the large river bank failure (on the opposite side of the river and upstream of the damage at MP 33.6—just above the center of the photo); the shallow Monte Cristo Lake; and MP 33.6. The damage site at milepost 33.1 is located east, and across from the main avalanche chute. Contributing to the damage from the 2003 flood event was a rock deflector, constructed by the Federal Highway Administration between mileposts 33.1 and 33.6, following damage from the 1990 flood. Built of large boulders, the deflector is 100 to 200 feet in length and extends into the river channel, perpendicular to the Mountain Loop Highway. The intent of the deflector was to increase the “roughness” of the channel on the right-(southern) bank thus defusing river energy and preventing future road damage. This structure was successful in protecting the road adjacent to the deflector site; however, the energy of the river was transferred across the channel and downstream of the deflector.

17 Sediment surges come from an avalanche chute on Twin Peaks; see Figure 23, above.

63 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Affected Environment

Figure 24–Aerial View of the Upper End of the Project Area

Left Bank Failure Active Debris MP 33.6 Avalanche Chute

MP 33.1

Monte Cristo Lake

64 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Affected Environment

The structure also constricted the river channel, causing the water to incise or down-cut the channel. The combination of energy deflection and down-cutting caused accelerated erosion of the stream bank on the opposite side of the river, upstream of the road washout at Mile Post 33.6.

Water Quality (Including 303(d) Streams) Water quality of the Sauk River, based on Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) standards, is rated Class AA from the headwaters to the confluence with the Skagit River, near the town of Rockport. The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 and subsequent amendments make it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutants into waters of the United States, unless a permit is obtained under provisions of the act. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delegated implementation of the CWA to the states and the State of Washington (Department of Ecology) recognizes the Forest Service as the designated management agency for meeting CWA requirements on National Forest System lands. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires the State to periodically prepare a list of all surface waters where pollutants have impaired the beneficial uses of water (for drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, etc.). Types of pollutants include high temperature, fecal coliform, excess nutrients, low levels of dissolved oxygen, and toxic substances. Water quality monitoring has occurred in the Sauk River between the confluences of the White Chuck River and the Sauk River forks, just downstream of the proposed Mountain Loop repairs. Participants involved in water quality sampling in the Sauk River watershed over the years include: EPA, the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, and the Forest Service. The year 2000, Department of Ecology 303(d) list of water quality impairments includes none of the waters in the upper Sauk River or its tributaries. The 2002 – 2004 proposed listing [approved by the Department of Ecology but not yet by EPA] also shows no water quality impairments for this area. (The only proposed listing near the Mountain Loop project area is for a fish passage barrier culvert in Skull Creek, located some four miles downstream of the project area).

Temperature The Washington State DOE standard for temperature in Class AA waters is a maximum of 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The Sauk River and Sauk River Forks Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest Service, 1996) reported that the Sauk River upstream from the White Chuck River (River Mile 32) to the Sauk River Forks (River Mile 40) has been identified as being temperature sensitive, with temperatures reaching the low 60s F18. and a daily fluctuation of up to 10 degrees F., usually in late August. Some of the temperature sensitivity is likely due to the Monte Cristo Lake; it is very shallow and the slow-moving water within the lake is exposed to direct sunlight. In July 1995, Kraemer recorded temperatures of 52 degrees F. near the mouth of Falls Creek in the morning and 61 degrees F. in the late afternoon near the gauge station above the White Chuck River confluence. The temperature standard for these waters is 60.8 degrees F. Kramer’s data are nearly a

18 Kurt Kraemer, personal communication, referenced in USDA FS, 1996, page 3c-58. 65 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Affected Environment

decade old and are not reliable for describing current conditions. There are no other records that document temperature problems in the Upper Sauk River.

Sediment Sediment plays a major role in the channel dynamics of the South Fork Sauk River. As discussed above, the landscape of this sub-watershed produces large quantities of sediment from active debris- avalanche-terrain and stream bank erosion. However, no sediment background data are known to exist for this area. Washington State water quality standards include a narrative standard for sediment and numeric criteria for turbidity. For sediment: the narrative standard prohibits sediment levels that would impair conditions for beneficial uses (in the case of the Sauk River, salmonid spawning and rearing). The turbidity standard addresses the amount of suspended and/or dissolved material within the water column, measured in Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTU). An NTU is a measure of the reduction of light intensity when a light passes through a sample of water. The Washington State Department of Ecology Class AA Water Quality Standard for turbidity is: shall not exceed 5 NTU over background turbidity when the background turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or have more than a 10 percent increases in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU. There are no turbidity measurements in the vicinity of the Mountain Loop road repairs but the summer low-flow conditions would be expected to be less than 50 NTU. Winter runoff conditions and storm flows would be expected to exceed 50 NTU. Samples taken over the year 2004 on the Sauk River near Rockport (a town located roughly 40 road miles north of the Mountain Loop project area) ranged from 3 NTU to 2200 NTU (Washington Department of Ecology website). In October 2003, the four road damage sites on the Mountain Loop Byway produced an estimated total amount of 3,500 cubic yards (4,700 tons) of sediment. To put this amount of sediment in context of the annual sediment production for the watershed, some calculation of the normal, background sediment production from this dynamic watershed is needed: ƒ For the forested portions of the watershed, the estimated sediment produced from forested lands ranges from 100 to 200 tons per square mile, annually (Swanson 1981). ƒ For the debris avalanche terrain in the Upper Fork Sauk: there is no known sediment production estimates for this landscape. However, glaciers and glacial terrain on Mount Rainier are estimated to produce about 19,000 tons of sediment per square mile, annually (Metcalf 1979). Thus, for this analysis, a conservative estimate is used: 10,000 tons of sediment production per square mile, per year from the debris avalanche terrain. It is assumed that about five percent of the South Fork Sauk Watershed is avalanche terrain; therefore, the estimated background sediment production in this river system would be about 31,000 tons of sediment annually.19 Thus, the material eroded from the Mountain Loop road repair sites during the 2003 flood event (4,700 tons of sediment) would have contributed approximately 15 percent to the gross, annual sediment production for the watershed. The avalanche debris chute from Twin Peaks (see Figure 23, above) was

19 To calculate this figure: the watershed is 44.6 square miles. For the 5% that is debris avalanche terrain, 44.6 x 0.05 = 2.23 square miles x 10,000 tons = 22,300 tons from the debris avalanche terrain. For the remaining, forested portion of the watershed: 44.6 x 0.95 = 42.37 square miles x 200 tons = 8,474 tons. Added to the 22,300 tons from the debris avalanche portion = an estimated 30,774 tons of background sediment. 66 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects

active during the 2003 flood, and it is estimated that this chute generated more sediment than the road failures. Finally, during a major flood year such as 2003, the background erosion rate would be much greater than 31,000 tons.20

Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects Over all, the proposed repair actions at the four damaged sites along the Mountain Loop Highway would have only minor effects on the channel dynamics and sediment regime of the South Fork Sauk River. (Also, see Assumptions, under Aquatic Resources and Soils Cumulative Effects page 75. Construction work would occur outside the normal high water channel and on the fringes of the valley floor (see project description and mitigation measures, Chapter 2). Very little sediment would be created during construction activities. Road fills would consist of, or be protected by, large rock and therefore, would not produce sediment. The small amounts of sediment expected from the proposed Mountain Loop repairs (Alternatives 2 or 3) would not alter channel processes or aquatic habitat. The physical changes would not materially restrict channel migration, floodplain connections, peak flows, or sediment production. Aside from the high natural sediment loading in the South Fork Sauk River, sediment produced by a repeated loss of the road fill has had the greatest effect to the river system and is the greatest continued threat. However, implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3 would reduce this threat: the damaged road segments would be realigned away from the river, with road fill anchored to bedrock, or the damaged segments would be replaced by bridge segments, also tied to bedrock. Although any introduced sediment would be transported downstream—see assumptions, below—it is not likely that material from the proposed repairs would be detectable downstream of the confluence of the South Fork and North Fork Sauk Rivers (located just off the map in Figure 3, page i). Long-term effects are related to maintaining the 2.5 miles of road within the river corridor. Portions of the Mountain Loop are within the channel migration zone and subject to washouts during floods. The low berms between the river and the road (see Affected Environment discussion, above) consist mostly of cobble and boulders and will remain highly vulnerable to washing away in major floods. These areas may continue to be at risk of damage as long as the road is maintained at these locations. However, at all four proposed repair sites, the roadway is outside or at the very fringe of the river migration extent. Existing large boulders and bedrock under the roadway generally prevent channel migration at these locations. The proposed repairs at MP 33.1, 33.6, 34.8 and 35.6 would be expected to greatly reduce the risk of loss of road fill and to maintain existing water quality.

Effects on 303(d) Listed Streams – All Alternatives In all alternatives, there would be no effect to 303(d) streams, as none are listed in or near the Mountain Loop repair project area.

20 Taken a different way, the watershed area above Elliott Creek is about 9.3 square miles. Using 150 tons of sediment per square mile on forested areas and 19,000 tons for glacial and snow field erosion, FHWA (1995) estimated that the watershed above Elliott Creek produces approximately 4,400 tons of sediment per year (3,260 cubic yards). However, this total is an estimate and lacks field verification. In comparison, the failures on the Mountain Loop Highway in 2003 produced 4,700 tons, which is approximately equal to a normal years sediment yield for the upper watershed. 67 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action) – Aquatic Resources and Soils Because no restoration activities would occur if no action were implemented, the road would remain in its current condition. During large flood events, the South Fork Sauk River would continue to washout portions of the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway between mileposts 33.1 and 35.6. Past experience with similar, flood-damaged roads indicates that not repairing the road or restoring the damaged areas increased sediment loading into the rivers. In 1990, on a damaged road on Wells Creek21, repair was delayed. Site surveys established after the initial storm damage were re-measured after a second storm. The amount of sediment delivered to the river doubled after the second storm: an additional 17,000 cubic yards of sediment was generated, bringing the total estimate sediment delivered to the river to approximately 28,700 tons. For the Mountain Loop damaged sites, there is the potential that tons of road-related sediment would enter the river system, over a period of several years to a decade or more, as shown in Table 3. If no action were taken (Alternative 1), sediment production would persist, when high flows undermine portions of the road fill. Any loose road fill material not removed by the 2003 event would probably wash away in future events, and the washouts would expand over time. It is estimated that the river would continue to erode the old road prism at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6; the river would eventually occupy the current location of the Mountain Loop between roughly mileposts 35.0 and 35.4. With no road maintenance on the 2.5 miles of damaged road, the berm separating the road from the river in this area would eventually break down and be overtopped. Lateral migration of the river channel would be less restricted. For the damaged sites at mileposts 33.1 and 34.8, the road fill would continue to be lost during and after flood events, though likely not as dramatically as at MP 33.6 and 35.6. Using the gross dimensions of how much of the road material may be eroded, just under 500 tons (about 369 cubic yards22) of material may be generated from the continued erosion at the four damage sites if no repairs were implemented (No Action Alternative). This could occur all at once, during a very high flow, or over a decade or more with a series of smaller floods. Note that the background sediment production for the South Fork Sauk River system is estimated at 31,000 tons per year (see discussion above).

21 A tributary to the North Fork Nooksack River, located north of the Sauk River. 22 Tons to cubic yard calculations are based on conversion tables from several different sources (see References) and using wet mud, containing clay as the material to be converted. 68 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects

Table 3–Estimated Sediment That May Enter the South Fork Sauk River from Repair Sites, No Action Alternative (tons and cubic yards) Total Alternative M.P. 33.1 M.P. 33.6 M.P. 34.8 M.P. 35.6 Volume 70 tons 168 tons 120 tons 140 tons 498 tons 1 – No Action 52 cubic yds 124 cubic yds 89 cubic yds 104 cubic yds 369 cubic yds Note: one cubic yard of sediment equals roughly two pickup-truck loads of material. This amount of sediment would result from continued erosion over time, and may occur for up to one decade or more. The river would not be expected to migrate much further into the hillside (on the right stream bank, location of the Mountain Loop) at mileposts 33.6 or 35.6: bedrock and boulders are already exposed in the river bed and river banks and the bedrock controls the channel margins at these locations. However, channel migration into the hillside may occur at areas up or downstream of these bedrock outcrops. Due to the large size of the channel materials (boulders), the river channel would not be expected to migrate laterally except during very large flood events. The amount of migration at the four damage sites would be small, but there may be considerable channel migration elsewhere, depending upon the nature of the bank materials and the influence of large wood in the river.

Estimated Effects on Water Quality, Water Temperature –Alternative 1 If the 369 cubic yards of sediment were to enter the South Fork Sauk River all at once, there would likely be enough change in sediment load to cause channel changes (even though this would likely occur during a storm event when sediment loading would be high). The additional coarse sediment could add to channel gravel bar formation that would result in higher channel migration. The finer sediments would travel downstream—see Cumulative Effects, Assumptions, Suspended Sediment, below—and settle out in calm water zones and could impact fish spawning areas and rearing pools (see Fisheries – Environmental Effects, page 87). There would likely not be a violation of turbidity standards because of the already-high turbidity during storm events. However, it is not likely that the entire 369 cubic yards that could potentially enter the South Fork Sauk would enter the river at once, if no action were taken. This erosion would likely occur over a few years, and the material would be incorporated into the sediment load of the river without noticeable or measurable channel change. There would be no change in stream temperature, as there would be no vegetation removal that would affect temperature; see Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 2 (Proposed Action – Aquatic Resources and Soils, page 73. While some vegetation would likely be lost over time, as the river continues to migrate in places, some young, mixed coniferous/hardwood forest would likely be established on eight feet of the 14-foot road bed on portions of the damage sections of the road (see Wildlife Effects, page 116). There would be no potential for a hydraulic or fuel spill into the South Fork Sauk River, as there would be no machinery working in or near the river. With this portion of the Mountain Loop closed to vehicle traffic, there would be no potential for oil or gas contamination of the water from vehicles.

69 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 2 (Proposed Action –Aquatic Resources and Soils If implemented, the repairs proposed in Alternative 2 would result in realigned segments of the Mountain Loop Byway, located away from the South Fork Sauk River, and constructed on a more stable road base, to better withstand future flood events. At milepost 33.6, one 60-foot section of damaged roadway around a bedrock cliff would be replaced by a bridge, spanning the damaged section; bridge abutments would be built on and tied-to bedrock. The rest of the washed-out road at this milepost would be aligned away from the river where bedrock allows. At all four sites, the repairs do not replace the road in the existing alignment, protected by riprap, as was generally the case in past repairs. Where large foundation rocks are to be used (see Alternative 2, Chapter 2), they would weigh from 8,000 to 14,000 pounds and measure 4.5 to 5.0 feet in diameter to meet 100-year flood event design requirements. Using material of this size would offset the power of the river and provide channel roughness to dissipate lateral scour potential. Past repairs have demonstrated that smaller materials are not adequate to ensure a stable roadbed during large flood events. If Alternative 2 – Proposed Action were implemented, there would be no appreciable erosion or sediment delivery to the South Fork Sauk River. The repair project would be expected to produce less than 2 cubic yards of sediment – or about four pickup loads of material – compared to 3,260 cubic yards of annual background sediment of the Sauk River above Elliott Creek. Therefore, there would be no impacts to aquatic habitat or river processes due to sediment. Table 4, below, repeats the information presented for the No Action Alternative, and includes the estimated sediment generated by the repair sites for the action alternatives, as mitigated (see Chapter 2). For Alternative 2 (and Alternative 3), the amount of sediment generated would be short-term: these amounts would be annual in the first year or two, then would diminish to insignificant amounts in the following years.

Table 4–Estimated Sediment That May Enter the South Fork Sauk River from Repair Sites, (Alternatives 2 and 3 Include Prescribed Mitigation Measures) Total Volume Alternative M.P. 33.1 M.P. 33.6 M.P. 34.8 M.P. 35.6

70 tons 168 tons 120 tons 140 tons 498 tons 1 – No Action 52 cubic yds 124 cubic yds 89 cubic yds 104 cubic yds 369 cubic yds

0.4 tons 0.6 tons 0.4 tons 0.9 tons 2.3 tons 2 – Proposed Action 0.3 cubic yds 0.5 cubic yds 0.3 cubic yds 0.7 cubic yds 1.8 cubic yds 0.4 tons 26 tons 0.4 tons 33 tons 59.8 tons 3 – Two Multi- span Bridges 0.3 cubic yds 19 cubic yds 0.3 cubic yds 24 cubic yds 43.6 cubic yds Note: one cubic yard of sediment equals roughly two pickup-truck loads of material.

70 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects

Re-aligning the road would open new cut-slope areas to the potential for erosion. For all four sites combined, slightly less than one acre of trees and vegetation would be removed, exposing bare soil to potential erosion. Added to the road running surface (still a potential erosion source) plus the pulled- back, old damage fill slopes, the total ground disturbance at all four sites would be approximately four acres. However, with application of the erosion control measures prescribed for this project, little erosion would be expected and little eroded material would be expected to enter the South Fork Sauk River where it could affect aquatic habitat (see Chapter 2, Mitigation Measures and Management Practices and Requirements). All over-steepened slopes would be pulled back, and excess material (not washed away in the 2003 flood event) removed and hauled away from the site (Soils, Aquatics Fisheries Measures # 1, 6, 22). Applying seed and mulch would prevent the majority of any erosion from bare soils. Looking at the very small amounts of potential sediment that could enter the South Fork Sauk Table 4, above), and using an erosion control effectiveness estimate of 80 percent that MBS specialists have determined would be appropriate for this project (USDA FS 1981),23 it is anticipated that only minor amounts of sediment would actually enter the river.

Estimated Sediment Generated at Each Repair Site–Alternative 2

Milepost 33.1 At Mile Post 33.1, a portion of the road edge washed out when flood water undermined the slope below. The outside edge of the road is now steep (nearly vertical) and fairly unstable; soils continue to ravel into the channel margin. Implementing Alternative 2 – Proposed Action would include pulling back the top portion of this over-steepened slope, to a more stabile configuration. If needed, a rock buttress would be built at the toe of the new cut slope. Any bare soils, as a result of realigning the road or pulling back the steep slopes, would be seeded and mulched to minimize surface erosion for both the short and long term. There would be two sources of potential minor erosion at this site: the new cut slope for road realignment and pulling back the old road material. With the planned mitigation (seeding and mulching, with assumed 80 percent effectiveness), the 0.1 acre of disturbed ground for the road realignment has the potential to generate about 0.1 ton (0.2 cubic yards) of sediment the first year or two, then diminishing to insignificant amounts as the sites re-vegetate. As the old road material is pulled away from the old alignment, some material could slough down the slope to the river. Most of this material would fall into the channel margin, not into the water (low flow conditions) and would be retrieved via selected erosion-control methods (see Soils, Aquatics, Fisheries Mitigation Measures # 1, 2, 3, 15, 18, 22, 23, and 24 in Chapter 2). The equivalent of 0.3 tons (or one-half of a pickup truck- load) of material might remain at the channel margin, where the first high-water event would remove it. This would result in no more sediment than if a silt fence (which is one potential erosion control method, see Chapter 2) were installed to contain sloughed material. (As the material caught by a silt

23 The 80% effectiveness figure was taken from a current USDA FS guide that describes erosion control techniques for forest roads and displays the relative sediment reduction of each combination of mitigation techniques, and verified as appropriate for the Mountain Loop project by the MBS Hydrologist/Soils Scientist, based on results from similar projects and his 27 years of professional experience. In general, re-vegetation of exposed soil is fairly rapid on the MBS, but effectiveness can vary, depending upon the cut slope material, its size, and the type of surrounding vegetation. 71 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects

fence is cleaned out, a small amount of material would be left behind; complete cleaning of such silt fences is impossible.) With no riprap protecting repairs at MP 33.1, there is the possibility that the future major floods could cause additional erosion; however, the road prism would be realigned away from the river, so road- related sediment would be minimal compared to the No Action Alternative.

Milepost 33.6 At this repair site, the proposed road realignment for the lower portion of the damaged road would move the road away from the river and place it next to the side of the rock cliff; only a short, new cut slope would be created (rather than a large, open cut slope). For the upper portion of the repair at MP 33.6, a 60-foot long bridge would circumvent the bedrock cliff. The reconstructed road and the bridge along the edge of the river would be above most flood levels. The Alternative 2 proposed design would include a roadway more removed from the river than the old road (as it would narrow to one-lane), with short, low retaining walls built above the ordinary high water mark (see Figure 10, Figure 11, and Figure 12, Chapter 1). The short bridge would eliminate the need to place fill material back into the South Fork Sauk River. The upstream end of the new roadway would be protected by large riprap (4.5 to 5 feet in diameter and weighing 8,000 to 14,000 pounds). The total length of the riprap base may be up to 50 feet; it would extend a maximum of 10 feet horizontally into the normal high water channel; see Figure 11, Chapter 1. This short piece of stream bank is located between very large boulders (8-12 feet in diameter) and bedrock. While the riprap would prevent erosion at this location, there would be little or no channel migration here, due to the presence of the very large boulders and the bedrock. Estimated erosion from disturbed soils at MP 33.6 would be 0.5 cubic yards or less, annually for the first year or two, before vegetation is reestablished (and would diminish after year two). None of this slope erosion would reach the river because it would be caught in the ditch line designed along the length of the repair except at the bridge. This design technique is effective; the ditch would empty onto the valley floor on this hillside side of the road, and not into the South Fork Sauk River. During construction and pullback of the old fill—and without prescribed mitigation measures—as much as 5.0 cubic yards of material could slough-off into the channel margin. However, most of this soil would be retrieved during the project, with the prescribed erosion-control methods. As mitigated, an estimated maximum of 0.5 cubic yards of sediment might remain on the river margin, to be washed away during the next runoff event.

Milepost 34.8 At this repair site, exposed soils from both the road realignment and pulling back the nearly-vertical slope where the road edge washed out would be mulched and re-vegetated, to minimize surface erosion for both short- and long-term. The 0.1 acre of disturbed ground could generate 0.1 ton of sediment annually for the first two years. Added to that amount, during construction, the equivalent of 0.3 ton of soil could fall into the channel margin, while the sloughing old road fill is pulled back. Most of this would be retrieved along the channel margins (see Mitigation Measures) such that no significant amounts of sediment would wash into the river.

72 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects

With no riprap protecting repairs at this site, there is the possibility that the future major floods could cause additional erosion; however, the road prism would be realigned away from the river, so road- related sediment would be minimal compared to the No Action Alternative.

Milepost 35.6 The proposed road repair at this milepost would involve cutting back into a very steep slope, as part of realigning the roadway (see page 21). The new roadway would be protected from future washouts by being built up above the ordinary high water mark and above smaller flood levels, on large rock keyed- into bedrock veins. Remaining material from the old road bed would be pulled back away from the river. Exposed soils would be mulched and vegetated to reduce surface erosion to approximately 0.2 cubic yards or less, per year, in the first year or two. During construction and pullback of the existing prism, potentially 5 cubic yards (6 tons) of material could fall into the river. However, prescribed erosion-control methods (see Mitigation Measures, Chapter 2) would minimize entry of material into the river. A check (or coffer) dam of burlap bags filled with pea gravel (or other material free of fine sediment) would be used along the bedrock portion of the repair, where the risk of sloughing directly into the channel is greatest. This dam would collect any sediment, which could then be removed. With these mitigation measures, an estimated maximum of 0.5 cubic yard of sediment may be left at the river edge to be washed away during the next runoff event. The total maximum sediment could be 0.7 cubic yards, annually for the first year or two: 0.5 from the road construction work and 0.2 from the erosion of exposed soils.

Estimated Effects on Water Temperature, Water Quality–Alternative 2 The proposed construction activities at all four repair sites would result in removing a small number of trees, so that the Mountain Loop can be realigned into the hillside. All vegetation that would be removed is on the opposite side of the road from the river, and with a few exceptions, the trees are small in size. These trees currently do not shade the active river bed. Their removal would have no effect on stream temperatures in the South Fork Sauk and no effect on peak flows due to changes in runoff (again because the trees to be remove are generally small and there are too few to make much of a difference). The trees to be removed would mostly be t oo small to contribute effectively to the large wood component of the river—they would be easily broken or washed away. (The best large trees were already recruited to the river during the flood event.) The one large hemlock from the proposed repair at MP 34.8 and the few larger trees, including seven legacy trees that would be removed from the hillside (away from the river) at MP 35.6, would also be used within local streams. At this time, the Forest Service proposes to use them at the lower White Chuck ERFO repair site, if Alternative 2 is implemented. With less than 2 cubic yards of sediment expected if Alternative 2 were implemented, there would be no noticeable or measurable channel change. At the repair sites at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6: the potential for contamination from spillage from heavy equipment used above or adjacent to the river could occur over a period of a few hours within a day, spanning two to four days per week, for up to roughly one month in duration. However, little or no impact to water quality from oil, gas, diesel, or hydraulics would be expected, due to implementation of

73 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects

the mitigation measures—particularly Soils, Aquatics, Fisheries # 8, 9, 10, 20, and 24. Also, no machinery would be operating in the water. These measures and management practices and requirements have been evaluated as being effective in preventing heavy machinery chemical contaminant spills on similar MBS projects over the past 12 years.

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 3–Aquatic Resources and Soils If implemented, Alternative 3 would result in repairs and realigned road segments at milepost 33.1 (the upstream, western-most damage site) and milepost 34.8, as described in Alternative 2. The estimated effects at these two sites would be the same as those described for Alternative 2. At mileposts 33.6 and 35.6, implementation of Alternative 3 would include construction of long, multi- span bridges over the original washed-out portions of the Mountain Loop. This would eliminate the need to move the roadway into the hillside or to create new cut slopes at these two mileposts, and would reduce the amount of erosion from these repair sites. However, additional sediment would be generated from the temporary work roads needed to construct the bridges; their removal would also add to the potential sediment that could be delivered to the river. For all four sites, the total estimated sediment from repairs proposed in Alternative 3 would be 43.6 cubic yards (see Table 4). The temporary work roads would be built in the river channel, separated from the active flow by a dike. The work roads would be placed on large rock, so only a small amount of material would be expected to be left after removal. If an inch of gravel and smaller-sized material is left at both mileposts 33.6 and 35.6, an estimated 19 cubic yards (26 tons) of sediment at MP 33.6 and 24 cubic yards (33 tons) may be subject to washing away by the river with the first high runoff.24 Refer to Table 4, above. While the total sediment estimated for Alternative 3 (up to 43.6 cubic yards, annually for the first year or two) is an order of magnitude greater than Alternative 2, there would still be no effect on the river dynamics, when this amount of sediment is mixed with the 3,260 cubic yards of annual background sediment in the South Fork Sauk River at Elliott Creek, or the 31,000 tons of background sediment for the entire river system. With the long bridges, the roadbed would be above the 100-year flood level. Shafts would be drilled into bedrock to support the large diameter piers that would support the bridge abutments and superstructure. All of these structures are outside of the river channel, and would not impact the channel migration since they are anchored to bedrock. However, the piers would interact with flood flows and possibly trap sediment and debris. This would change the flow characteristics around the bridge sites. Flood waters would flow under the bridge, but abutments and piers would change flow characteristics at these locations. Channel migration would not be restricted at these points.

24 Calculated as follows: 300 to 400 feet of temporary road work, times 20-feet wide, times one inch deep. 74 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects

Estimated Effects on Water Temperature, Water Quality–Alternative 3 There would be no effect on stream temperature or large wood recruitment if Alternative 3 were implemented, since the road would be replaced at the same location (though on bridges) at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6. The trees to be removed at mileposts 33.1 and 34.8 would mostly be too small to contribute effectively to the large wood component of the river—they would be easily broken or washed away. (The best large trees were already recruited to the river during the flood event.) The one large hemlock from the proposed repair at MP 34.8 could be used within local stream. At the repair sites at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6, the potential for contamination from spillage from heavy equipment used above or adjacent to the river could occur over a period of a few hours within a day, spanning two to four days per week, for up to roughly one month in duration. There is a greater risk of water quality contamination from hydraulic fluid, oil and gas than under Alternative 2, from the equipment working near water on the temporary road work. However, little or no impact to water quality would be expected due to implementation of the mitigation measures—particularly Soils, Aquatics, Fisheries # 8, 9, 10, 20, and 24. Also, no machinery would be working in the water. Removal of the temporary work road would remove any contaminated material from the river channel (it would be removed as the road surface is removed). The mitigation measures have been evaluated as being effective in preventing heavy machinery chemical contamination spills on similar projects on the MBS over the past 12 years.

Aquatic Resources and Soils Cumulative Effects A cumulative effect occurs when the effects of a proposed project overlap both in space and time with the residual (still on-going) effects of past action, or the estimated effects of present or reasonably- foreseeable future actions. Refer to Appendix C for the process used for the cumulative effects analysis for the Mountain Loop proposed road repairs, including maps showing the spatial relationship of the proposed road repairs on the Mountain Loop and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the vicinity. Also, refer to the Hydrology Specialist Report and Considerations for Sediment Cumulative Effects Analysis (Ketcheson 2005), in the project files. Since the proposed Mountain Loop Byway repairs would only directly effect sedimentation and channel migration, there would be no cumulative effects on steam temperature or rain-on-snow peak flows.

Assumptions ƒ Cumulative effects associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 would be similar. ƒ Sediment effects from repair site erosion are short-term – one to two years, then would diminish to not be measurable. ƒ Long-term sediment has two major sources: a) future floods and the potential of future road washouts; and b) longevity of sediment in the river system—material perched on islands and floodplains.

75 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects

ƒ The soils that may enter the South Fork Sauk system as a result of project activities consist of:25 a. 30 percent suspended sediment; b. 65 percent sand and gravel; c. 5 percent cobbles. ƒ The distance that material travels per year in the South Fork Sauk River varies by the size of the material (Bunte and MacDonald 1998): d. suspended sediment, particularly lacustrine clays = 12.4 miles per year (20 km); e. bedload: sand and gravel = 1.2 miles per year (2 km); f. bedload: cobbles and boulders = 330 feet per year (0.1 km). This sediment analysis does not take into consideration the complicated pathways of sediment delivery and routing of sediment through the Sauk River. That more complex analysis would: (1) show a reduced amount of sediment actually delivered to the river; (2) show deposits of various quantities along the river margins during flood events; and (3) divide the sediment into suspended and bedload components. Although that analysis would be more complete, the conclusions would be the same, because project-related sediment volumes are relatively small and all quantities would be reduced.

Suspended Sediment The minor amounts of suspended sediments estimated from the four Mountain Loop repair sites that may enter the South Fork Sauk River system would travel downstream to the White Chuck River (about 10 river miles from the site at MP 35.6), and likely beyond with the first high water in the fall. As shown in Table 4, the annual estimated sediment input for all four repair sites would range from a total of 1.8 cubic yards in Alternative 2, to 43.6 cubic yards in Alternative 3. Not all of this material would be expected to enter the water at the same time. Construction would occur at times of low stream-flow conditions (mid to late summer); thus, any fine materials that enter the system would probably not travel as far, but would be quite visible. During the first high water event, the remainder of the sediment on the stream margin would be mobilized and combined with the background turbidity of the river. There are numerous other natural sources of lacustrine clay exposed in unstable river banks between the four repair sites and the White Chuck River, including the Bedal landslide, all of which would contribute to suspended sediment in the river system. At the confluence of the South Fork with the larger North Fork Sauk River (two miles downstream from MP 35.6), considerable dilution and mixing of sediments carried from the Mountain Loop project sites with additional material carried in the North Fork Sauk would occur. The small amount of suspended sediments from the project sites would likely be diminished and indistinguishable from other sediment picked up between the North Fork Sauk and the White Chuck River. When suspended sediment from the repair activities reaches the White Chuck River (10 river miles downstream from the lower repair site at MP 35.6), they would be completely masked by the turbidity of the glacial sediments in the White Chuck. ƒ Water quality would be maintained since the quantity of sediment expected during construction (when background turbidity is low) would be roughly a bucket of sediment (Alternative 2) into 500 to 700 cubic-feet-per-second of stream flow. Turbidity standards are expected to be met because of

25 Based on ocular estimated from roadbed, cut and fill slopes, and natural material. 76 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects

the small amount of introduced sediment during construction (about 0.7 cubic feet for the entire construction period26) and the dilution effect of the river. There is no direct correlation between turbidity and the concentration of sediment in the water (milligrams/liter). So, the predictions that the turbidity standards would be met are based on the small quantity of project-introduced sediment and the dilution by the South Fork Sauk River. When the first high water of the fall picks up the remaining sediment on the channel margin, the background turbidity would be high and the sediment from this project (1.8 to 43.6 cubic yards) would be dissolved into a flow of 1,000 cubic feet per second or more of turbid water.

Bedload Sediment (Sand and Gravel) Sand and gravels from the three upstream repair sites (MP 33.1, 33.6, and 34.8) would not likely travel as far as the lower repair site at milepost 35.6 (2.5 miles) during the first year after the road repairs. Sand and gravel from MP 35.6 would not likely travel beyond the confluence of the South and North Fork Sauk Rivers the first year. As noted above, sand and gravel entering the river system as a result of this project would only be expected to affect the river during the first year or two following implementation. Project-generated sediments at the river channel margin would be mobilized when the flow rises. The amount of material would be small quantities at four sites (1.8 to 43.6 cubic yards total, with estimated 30 percent suspended-sized material), across 2.5 miles of river in the project area. During transport, it would not be distinguishable from the high background sediment of the South Fork Sauk.

Cumulative Effects Table 5 on the following pages, shows the determination of potential cumulative effects for aquatic resources and soils. This table includes those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the Mountain Loop project vicinity that overlap with the road repair project in at least one variable of time or space. (See Appendix C for the list of all projects assessed, including those with no overlap.) Three projects in the vicinity of the proposed Mountain Loop Byway repair have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects for suspended sediment with the Mountain Loop project: ƒ Proposed Forgotten Plus Commercial Thinning Sale; ƒ On-going Mountain Loop road maintenance from Barlow Pass to Bedal Creek; and ƒ Proposed Monte Cristo bridge replacement. For two other ERFO flood-repair projects—Gold Mountain, including replacement of the White Chuck Bridge, and the proposed repair of the White Chuck Road 23—there may be overlap spatially and potentially temporally with the Mountain Loop proposed repairs, depending upon the timing of project construction. However, any effects on aquatic resources and soils would not be measurable. See the discussion following Table 5.

26 This estimate is based on the assumption that 30 percent of the small amount of construction-generated sediment is suspended size material and that, using prescribed Mitigation Measures, an estimated five percent of that would actually get into the water during construction. This amounts to about a three gallon bucket for Alternative 2. 77 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects

Table 5–Aquatic Resources and Soils – Cumulative Effects Determination for Projects in the Sauk and White Chuck Riv ers Project Potential Overlap in Measurable Extent, Effects Time Space Cumulative Detectable? Effect? Skull/Funnybone Suspended Timing for No Yes No Commercial Sediment completion un- Thinning Sale Bedload certain. Estimated Sediment that perations would resume 1 year after No No No Mtn. Loop repairs are completed.

Lyle Suspended Project is No Yes No Commercial Sediment completed. No Thinning Sale Bedload remaining sediment Sediment effects, due to No No No mitigation measures implemented during the thinning. Proposed Suspended Potential exists for Forgotten Thin Sediment suspended sedi- Plus, Commercial Yes Yes ment to mix with Thinning Sale Yes sediment from Bedal Culvert, Mtn. Bedload Loop, and back- Sediment Yes No ground sediment. Decommissioning Suspended On-going, long-term of Roads 2080, Sediment No Yes improvement work No 2083, 2084, Bedload for sediment 2086, 2087 Sediment No No reduction. Proposed ERFO Suspended There may be an Yes Yes Repair of White Sediment overlap in timing of Chuck Road 23 Bedload construction; any minor suspended Sediment Not sediment would be measurable. Yes No not be measureable past confluenece of Sauk River with White Chuck River. Ongoing road Suspended Effects would be Yes Yes maintenance of Sediment small; any overlap in Mountain Loop Bedload time depends on from Barlow Pass Sediment timing of work and to Bedal Creek Yes subsequent storms. Yes Yes There would be no overlap in time once Mountain Loop repairs are done. Bedal Creek Suspended This is a long term No Yes Culvert removal Sediment Improvement for No (Road 4096) Bedload sediment reduction. No No Sediment Road 4096 Suspended This is a long term Decommission Sediment No Yes No Improvement for

78 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects

Project Potential Overlap in Measurable Extent, Effects Time Space Cumulative Detectable? Effect? and convert to Bedload sediment reduction. trail Sediment No Yes

Monte Cristo, Suspended There could be Yes Yes Road 4710 bridge Sediment minor amounts of replacement and Bedload suspended sedi- road repair Sediment Yes ment if this project Yes Yes occurs at the same time as Mountain Loop. Gold Mountain Suspended There may be an Yes Yes Road Repair, Sediment overlap in timing of Including White Bedload construction. Any Chuck Bridge minor suspended Sediment Not sediment would be measurable Yes No not be measureable past confluenece of Sauk River with White Chuck River.

Proposed Forgotten Thin Plus, Commercial Thinning Sale This proposed project proposes a commercial thin of between 107 and 533 acres of trees (average age 63 years) in the vicinity of Peek-a-Boo Creek and Falls Creek, about six miles downstream from the lower Mountain Loop repair site at MP 35.6. A Revised Environmental Assessment should be released for public comment in 2006; a decision is also expected this year. There would be an estimated potential, maximum increase of 94 tons of sediment the first year for Forgotten Thin Plus. Simplified calculations of sediment production in the combined Upper Sauk and White Chuck Rivers suggest an estimated an annual amount of 24,000,000 tons (from draft of Revised Forgotten Thin Plus EA, 2005). Thus, the first-year sediment estimated for Forgotten Thin represents less than 1/10,000 of a percent increase in the sediment load of the Sauk River at the White Chuck. There is the potential for overlap with the sediment produced in the first two years of repair work for Mountain Loop—if Forgotten Thin Plus is implemented within two year of the Mountain Loop. The estimated sediment from the road repair work (see Table 4, above) would be miniscule (Alternative 2) compared to the 94 tons from Forgotten Thin Plus, and especially compared to the natural sediment. Mountain Loop Alternative 3, if implemented, would produce half of the potential sediment of Forgotten Thin. If implementation of the thinning sale were delayed, there would be no overlap in time and therefore, no cumulative effect.

On-going Mountain Loop Road Maintenance Maintaining the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway—once the four damaged sites are repaired—from Barlow Pass (Forest Road 4710) to Bedal Creek would include brushing, removal of debris, and blading. These activities result in a berm that builds up along the outside edge of the road. The berms protect the road from most high water events and retard channel migration. The high gradient, narrow South Fork Sauk River valley does not contain significant amounts of floodplain; however, extreme 79 Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects flood events have built discontinuous river terraces along the valley margins. The road is located on these terraces, and in places where there is no terrace, the road and river are at nearly the same elevation. While repair or replacement of the berm is not included in the proposed action for the Mountain Loop project, maintaining the road through this stretch of river results in persistence of the berms that limit channel migration across the narrow valley. No sediment cumulative effects are anticipated from the Mountain Loop maintenance. Blading the road surface re-mobilizes fine sands, silts, and clays on the road surface. This material can wash off the roadway during rain events, if they occur during the first few weeks after blading. After one to two weeks, traffic re-compacts the road surface and the material is less erodible. No maintenance (blading) of the Mountain Loop Byway in the project area is expected until the repair work is completed. If a storm occurred within one or two weeks of the maintenance and completion of the Mountain Loop repairs, a possible cumulative effect could occur; however, it is difficult to quantify the effect. Much of the material that washes from the road surface deposits alongside the roadway. The remainder may enter ephemeral or perennial channels, where additional deposition occurs. A small amount of suspended material may enter the South Fork Sauk River, where (and when) the flush of the sediment from the Mountain Loop repair work would be occurring. However, this small amount of sediment generated would be completely masked by the background sediment in the river. Past Bedal Creek, the Mountain Loop is positioned on higher terraces, away from the South Fork Sauk River. In this location, road maintenance would have no affect on channel migration or streamside shade and the effects on sediment delivery are limited to the crossing of tributary streams. However, the majority of these tributary stream crossings have been upgraded in recent years and road sediment delivery is minimal. No cumulative effects on channel migration or water quality would result.

Proposed Monte Cristo Bridge Replacement One of two bridges on the road up to the old townsite of Monte Cristo (Road 4710) that was washed out in the mid-1990s has not been replaced. There is also a mud slide on this road (which is closed to public vehicle traffic). The proposed project is located upstream from the upper damage site at MP 33.1, along a creek that flows into the South Fork Sauk River at Barlow Pass. The Monte Cristo Preservation Association would like to replace the bridge and repair the road, but do not have the funding to do so. No implementation date for this proposal can be estimated. There are no residual effects from the replacement of the first bridge, roughly seven years ago. If implemented, the bridge replacement could generate some fine sediment, including lacustrine clays, which would move down to the South Fork Sauk to the Mountain Loop project area. The quantities would be small and short lived (a few days). The landslide across the road is currently out of the river channel and would not affect sediments in the rivers. If this project does not occur simultaneously with implementation of the Mountain Loop Byway repair work, there would be no cumulative effect.

Note on the Proposed White Chuck Road 23 Repair, and Repair of Gold Mountain Road Repair, Including the White Chuck Bridge: These repairs are located downstream from the Mountain Loop. (Note that the repair of the White Chuck Bridge is included with the Gold Mountain analysis; see discussion below.)

80 Fisheries – Affected Environment

The first of four damaged sites on White Chuck Road 23 is located nearly two miles from the confluence of the two rivers. Environmental analysis to repair Road 23 is underway, with a preliminary EA expected to be released for public comment in the spring of 2006. Although the analysis has not yet been completed, no more than four to six cubic yards of sediment (two to three tons) would be expected from the work. No work is planned in the low flow channel; the only direct introduction of sediment would be during construction of the culvert crossing on an unnamed tributary, and from the movements of an excavator on gravel bars during large wood placement on the river floodplain. This small amount of sediment would not likely be measurable in the glacial sediment of the White Chuck River. The White Chuck Bridge, part of the approved Gold Mountain Road Repair,27 is located very near the confluence of the Sauk and the White Chuck Rivers, roughly nine miles downstream from the lower Mountain Loop repair site at MP 35.6. The rest of the Gold Mountain road repairs are located along the Road 22 system (further away from the Mountain Loop). As mitigated, only small amounts of suspended sediments are expected to result from the Gold Mountain repairs: short term, one to two years, less than four cubic yards of suspending solids. See Gold Mountain EA for more detail. Although the potential exists for cumulative effects from suspended sediments from these proposed repairs and those from the Mountain Loop road repairs—depending upon temporal overlap with the project construction activities—the size of the effect would not be measurable. For both projects, the use of Best Management Practices would minimize erosion and sedimentation. The small amount of suspended sediment from the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway repair project would be fully diluted and obscured once the White Chuck and Sauk Rivers converge, resulting in no measurable cumulative effect with these other ERFO projects.

Fisheries – Affected Environment As noted in Chapter 1, the Sauk River basin is a Tier 1 Key Watershed (USDA FS, USDI BLM 2004); it serves as refugia for maintaining and recovering habitat for at-risk stocks of anadromous salmonids and resident fish species. The Sauk River provides habitat for a diversity of fish species, including those listed as “threatened” under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), species listed as “sensitive” by the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service (USDA FS 2004), and other anadromous and resident fish species. Three of the four damage sites along this segment of the Mountain Loop are located within the Skagit Wild and Scenic River corridor. Fisheries are one of the outstandingly-remarkable values for which the South Fork Sauk was designated as Scenic.

Fish Presence in the Project Area

Federally-Listed Fish Species There are two species of fish that are federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Chinook salmon and native char (bull trout and Dolly Varden).

27 Decision Notice signed February 14, 2006. 81 Fisheries – Affected Environment

Chinook Salmon Chinook salmon is federally listed as threatened (as of March 1999), in the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). Three Chinook stocks utilize the Sauk River basin: lower Sauk summer-run, an upper Sauk spring-run, and Suiattle River spring-run. Chinook are mainstem and large tributary spawners. The lower Sauk summer stock spawns from the confluence of the Sauk with the Skagit River to Darrington (river mile [RM] 0 to 21 – and an estimated 19.5 miles downstream of the lower repair site at milepost 35.6). The upper Sauk spring stock spawns in the mainstem and tributaries from Darrington upstream to the North Fork Sauk Falls (RM 40), just downstream from Bedal Creek and the repair site at MP 35.6. Some Chinook only rear in freshwater during their first summer then rear in the Skagit estuary, while others rear for a full year.

Native Char – Bull Trout and Dolly Varden Native Char are also federally-listed as threatened within the Sauk River system. Native char (bull trout and Dolly Varden) in the Sauk basin are considered part of the Lower Skagit bull trout core population. Two local populations reside in the Sauk River system (Upper South Fork Sauk and the Forks of the Sauk River). The Sauk River bull trout populations support three freshwater life forms: resident, fluvial, and anadromous. Char were sampled in the South Fork Sauk and genetically determined to be bull trout as opposed to Dolly Varden (Leary and Allendorf 1997), though both species exhibit similar life history characteristics and habitat requirements. Native char require cold-water temperatures for spawning and incubation. Early rearing occurs in close proximity to spawning habitat, but juveniles disperse downstream throughout the system to rear.

Proposed Species for Federal Listing Two steelhead stocks utilize the Sauk basin: Sauk winter steelhead and Sauk summer steelhead. Winter steelhead comprises up to 95 percent of the steelhead in the basin and utilizes most of the Sauk River system. In August 1996, steelhead stocks in the Puget Sound ESU were initially determined by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to be “Not Warranted” for federal listing under the ESA. In July 2005, NMFS again began a one-year study to determine if this species is warranted for federal listing. The species was proposed for listing on March 29, 2006; the public comment period runs to June 27, 2006.

Candidate Species for Federal Listing Coho salmon are a federally listed candidate species in the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU, listed as such in July 1995. Coho is also listed as a USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species. Sauk basin coho are part of the Skagit coho salmon stock. They generally utilize smaller Sauk River tributaries and off- channel habitats (for spawning and rearing) but have been observed spawning in the South Fork Sauk mainstem above Elliott Creek (near the damage site at milepost 33.6). Coho rear for about one year in freshwater and utilize side-channel and off-channels habitats during fall and winter high flows.

Other Salmonid Species Other salmonids use the Sauk River system, though their use is limited. These species include: pink salmon, sockeye salmon, chum salmon, and sea-run cutthroat trout. Pink salmon in the Sauk River system are considered to be in a healthy status by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. This species can be found spawning in the South Fork Sauk mainstem up to Bedal Creek (which is just downstream from the damage site at MP 35.6). 82 Fisheries – Affected Environment

The sockeye salmon found in the Sauk River system are not recognized as a distinct stock. A small population persists in the mainstem and South Fork Sauk, upstream of the White Chuck confluence. Coastal (sea-run) cutthroat trout (a Forest Service Sensitive species) have been found in the Sauk watershed up to the confluence of North and South Forks Sauk. Both anadromous and resident fish are found in the Sauk River system. Limited observations by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife have documented the occurrence of chum salmon spawning in the South Fork Sauk River, within or adjacent to the project area. Most of the chum salmon spawning in the mainstem Sauk are found below the town of Darrington, some miles downstream from the Mountain Loop Byway repair sites. However, this species can be found spawning in the South Fork Sauk mainstem up to Bedal Creek (near MP 35.6). Other native resident fish in the Sauk River system include rainbow, char, and mountain whitefish. This suite of salmon and trout species utilize the system throughout the year, as shown in Table 6 below. Table 6–Timing of Salmonid Species Habitat Use in the Sauk River System Upstream In gravel Stock Spawning Rearing Migration Migration Development Chinook Early August Early August Late February (Sauk Spring) May through through mid- through end of Year round through mid- end of August September February June

September November November through April through Coho through early through end of Year round December end of June February May

Mid-December Mid March Mid-March Mid-March Steelhead through early through mid- through early Year round through mid- (winter) June July September July

July through Mid August Mid-August Mid-March Sockeye end of through end of through mid- Year round through mid- (riverine) September October June July

October Mid February Mid-February End of March Coastal sea-run through mid- through mid- through mid- Year round through mid- cutthroat March June June July

May through Native char Late September Late September Early March the end of (bull trout and through end of through mid- Year round through end of September Dolly Varden) October May June

Note: Early is considered to be the first week of the month. Late is considered to be the third and fourth weeks of the month.

Special Fish Habitat Designations

Critical Habitat Critical habitat is defined under the Endangered Species Act. On September2, 2005, NMFS issued a final rule designating critical habitat for 12 Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs), including the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU (70 FR 52630); the rule became effective January 2, 2006. The Mountain Loop Byway repair sites fall within the Sauk Sub-basin portion of this ESU, including the following water bodies: the Sauk River from its confluence with the Skagit upstream to Monte Cristo Lake (just 83 Fisheries – Affected Environment

upstream from the damage site at milepost 33.1). This segment supports an independent population of the upper Sauk River (spring) Chinook. While a final rule designating critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout was issued by USFWS (September 26, 2005, 70 FR 56212), National Forest System lands on the MBS (and all national forests within the area of the 1994 Plan Amendment (also known as the Northwest Forest Plan) were excluded from final critical habitat designation. Downstream from the national forest boundary, critical habitat is designated in the Sauk River (roughly 19 road miles downstream from the project area).

Essential Fish Habitat (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (Also see discussion in Chapter 1, Other Relevant Laws and Direction.) The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The 1996 amendment established new requirements for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) descriptions in Federal fishery management plans, and requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH. Essential Fish Habitat is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” In 1999, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council designated EFH for three species of Pacific salmon: Chinook, coho, and Puget Sound pink salmon. Essential Fish Habitat for all three species is present in the Sauk River system. Consultation with NMFS on likely effects of the Mountain Loop project on the Essential Fish Habitat was initiated in July 2005. A conference opinion was received from NMFS on October 28, 2005; see Consultation, below.

Since the Preliminary EA was released for the 30-day comment period: Material from the 1999 watershed baseline assessment (Preliminary EA, page 70, web version) has been summarized below. Most of the earlier tables presented information for the entire 78,800 acre fifth-field watershed, rather than project-area conditions. More narrative discussion of current fish habitat conditions in the project area of influence has been included, below. The 1999 baseline can be found in the project files.

84 Fisheries – Affected Environment

Fish Habitat: Baseline Assessment at the Watershed Scale The 1996 watershed analysis (Sauk River and Sauk River Forks Watershed Analysis) assessed the aquatic conditions (including fish and fish habitat) at the watershed/river basin scale. In 1999, the two fifth-field watersheds were again assessed (Evans 1999) to determine baseline conditions of fish and fish habitat indicators for Chinook and bull trout, as per criteria established by USFWS (Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators)—used in ESA consultation. The analysis area is very large: the Sauk River and Sauk River Forks fifth-field watersheds total about 197,700 acres (USDA FS 1996). The 1999 baseline assessment looked at 18 different habitat indicators, including: Temperature Sediment Chemical Contaminants Physical Barriers Substrate Embeddedness Large Woody Debris Pool Frequency and Quality Large Pools Off-Channel Habitat Fish Refugia Wetted Width/Depth Ratio Stream Bank Conditions Flood Plain Connectivity Changes in Peak/Base Flows Drainage Network Increase Road Density, Location Disturbance History Riparian Conservation Areas Disturbance Regime Using available information, and looking at past land management activities as well as restoration treatments, the 1999 baseline assessment found that for native char and upper Sauk River (spring) chinook at the fifth- field watershed scale, most of the habitat indicators were functioning either appropriately, or at risk.28 Large woody debris was rated as functioning appropriately for char, but at an unacceptable risk for Upper Sauk (spring) chinook. Other indicators functioning at unacceptable risk (both species) in 1999 were pool frequency, changes in peak/base flows, and disturbance regime. Factors contributing to these rating include the naturally occurring high-peak flow events in this river system and frequent channel-scouring events and mass wasting (some due to the steep topography) (Evans 1999).

Post-2003 Flood Baseline Assessment, Watershed Scale After the October 2003 flood event, MBS specialists updated the baseline assessment to reflect changes to fish habitat at various scales (site, channel reach, and watershed) resulting from the flood (Doyle 2004). On- the-ground field surveys were done in 2004, and pre-flood low-elevation aerial photographs were compared with aerial photos taken in 2004, post-flood.

What the Flood Changed Among the findings: the October 2003 flood event flood recruited significant volumes of large wood into the South Fork Sauk River channel system. Wood entering the river varied in size from small logs (10 to 20 feet in length) to whole trees, greater than 100-feet in length. The largest trees were generally more than three-feet in diameter, with the root wads still attached. This beneficial woody debris will be transported through the river channels over the next 10 to 20 years, and will positively influence six other habitat indicators: pool frequency and quality, large pools, off-channel habitat, fish refugia, floodplain connectivity, and riparian conservation areas. The additional large wood in the system should “move” these six habitat indicators to functioning appropriately over the next few years. The 2003 flooding changed the frequency and quality of pools in rivers in the Mountain Loop area. As bedload (sand, gravel, cobbles, etc.) and large wood is redistributed over the next decade or so, the frequency of pools should increase in the majority of these river systems.

28 1999 Baseline: functioning appropriately for native char and Upper Sauk (spring) chinook were: sediment, chemical contaminants, physical barriers, off-channel habitat, refugia, wetted width/depth ratio, floodplain connectivity, drainage network increase, road density and location, disturbance history, and riparian conservation areas. Functioning at risk for native char and Upper Sauk (spring) chinook were: temperature, substrate embeddedness, large pools, stream bank condition, changes in peak/base flows, and disturbance regime. 85 Fisheries – Affected Environment

As discussed above in this EA, stream banks in the river systems impacted by the 2003 floods experienced major channel bank erosion, in certain river segments—especially when whole trees were uprooted from the river banks. Overall, flooding is considered a natural component of these riverine landscapes. The Sauk River native fish populations have adapted to these dynamic flood conditions and over time, have come to rely on the natural processes resulting from these events. These include habitat formation from spawning gravel recruitment to large pool formation by the collection of small and large log jam complexes throughout the main stem channel and side channel network.

Post-2003 Flood Baseline Assessment, Project Scale The four damage sites on the Mountain Loop are located in the lower portion of the South Fork Sauk River, between Bedal Creek and Monte Cristo Lakes (and river miles 42.0 and 45.0). Salmon and trout spawning and rearing do occur in this river area: the project area is the upper extent of Sauk River spring Chinook and pink salmon spawning. Other species spawn in the project area and further upstream (to about river mile 50), including: sockeye and coho salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. Within the 2.5 mile river segment, the channel gradient of the South Fork Sauk ranges between 2 to 8 percent; see Channel Dynamic, above. Prior to the October 2003 flood event, MBS stream surveys determined that the dominant fish habitat in the Mountain Loop project area was riffles, or shallow areas that result in an increase in flow velocity. These surveys covered the period from 1981 to 1992 (USDA FS 1996). In the three-mile river reach of the project area, the riffle-to-pool ration was 80 percent riffle and 20 percent pools, resulting in 15.4 pools per mile. This ratio of riffles to pools with this gradient is considered to be poor to fair (Washington State Forest Practices Board 1993); the 15.4 pools per mile for a wetted-width channel the size of the South Fork Sauk (75-100 feet in summer low- flow period) is rated only fair (USDA FS 1993). And, while large pools do not provide the full range of habitat conditions needed by salmonids at all life stages (adult to juvenile), large pools provide important holding areas for adults migrating upstream and serve as rearing sites for some juvenile species. Large pools can also provide cover for both adult and juveniles from predators (Stouder et al. 1997).

What the Flood Changed, Project-Area Flood scour and the flush of sediment mobilized in the 2003 flood is likely to have impacted spawning success for spring Chinook salmon, and to some extent, bull trout. Chinook are main stem and tributary mouth spawners; by October, they would have spawned in these systems and the sediment generated by the flood probably caused complete egg mortality. (Bull trout spawn in smaller, higher-gradient streams and probably did not experience the same egg mortality.) If egg mortality is as predicted, it will be fully exhibited in this Chinook age class when it completes its four-to-five year cycle, with reduced numbers of spawning adults in 2007-2008. Pink salmon spawning success was also affected. The large, significant volume of large wood that was recruited, transported, and deposited by the 2003 flood event has initiated additional pool formation in the Mountain Loop project area. Based on both aerial photos and limited field stream surveys, both primary pools (with length greater than 1.5 channel widths and depth over two-feet) and secondary pocket pools are in the process of forming. With continued transport and deposition in the active river channel, this large woody debris (LWD) has the potential to develop the larger, primary pools and more secondary pools, which are critical for 86 Fisheries – Environmental Effects

salmon and trout migration and spawning, and rearing. With time, the pool quantity and quality in this three mile river reach should increase. Other impacts of the 2003 flood event include: a boost to formation of critical refugia over the next decade or two (from the many off-channel habitats created by the flooding, log jams, and large woody debris); and at least some reconnection of the mainstem South Fork Sauk channels with the adjacent floodplain.

Watershed and Fish Habitat Restoration Watershed restoration has been an important program on the MBS for years; see Table 7, below. Watershed restoration is an also integral part of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA FS, USDI BLM 1994). The goals and objectives of watershed restoration are integral to the recovery of fish habitat, riparian habitat, and water quality. The comprehensive restoration strategy of this Forest has addressed both protection of the best habitats that remain (their physical and biological processes and functions) and restoration of degraded habitats. Restoration activities are designed to protect and restore upslope, riparian, and channel components of watersheds, including physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. Treatments are carefully applied so that they accelerate natural recovery. Table 7, below, displays many of the watershed restoration activities that have been implemented in the Sauk River system since the mid-1980’s. Opportunities still exist for additional restoration treatments in the Sauk River system. Restoration activities would benefit salmonid fish and their habitats by reducing human-influenced sedimentation above an already high natural loading, and by increasing or enhancing off-channel habitat quantity or quality. In the Sauk River system, emphasis on upslope watershed restoration, and riparian and instream habitat restoration, is expected to continue over the next few years; cooperative restoration efforts with local Tribes, County/State/Federal agencies, non-profit groups, and private landowners are expected. Table 7–Watershed Restoration History in the Sauk River System Location Date Description Sauk River floodplain (Constant Channel, Side channel or off-channel rearing pond Hyachuck Pond, Skinny Sauk Pond, Tiny 1985 - 1990 creation to restore historic spawning and Kisutch Pond) rearing habitat. Sauk River Tributaries (Clear, Dutch, Murphy, In-channel structure placements for habitat 1985 - 1995 R&T, Early Coho, Lost Creek) formation. Restore road crossing fish passage barrier Dutch Creek, Hya Creek, Tiny Kisutch Creek 1999 - 2002 culverts (removal/replacement). Road storm-proofing (replacing culverts with Roads 2210011 and 2210014 2002 - 2005 bigger culverts, fill removal, etc). Roads 2080, 2083, 2084, 2086, and 2087 1990 - 2000 Road Decommissioning, about 11 miles. Roads 4096 and 4097 1990 - 2000 Road storm-proofing and decommissioning. Mountain Loop Scenic Byway (Forest Road Japanese knotweed prevention and control 2000 - 2005 20) along 20 road miles.

Fisheries – Environmental Effects

Definitions, General Effects The effects of implementation of any of the three alternatives on fish populations and their habitats are described as short- or long-term effects. 87 Fisheries – Environmental Effects

ƒ Short term for fishery effects is less than one year—and usually days or weeks. ƒ Long-term is greater than one year. Also, refer to the Aquatics, Fisheries specialist report in the project files. As noted above, the October 2003 flood event in the Sauk River system should, in the long term, benefit native fish species A number of habitat indicators that were rated as either functioning at risk or functioning unacceptably prior to the flood now have the potential to trend toward functioning appropriately. The transport and deposition of substantial volumes of large woody debris (LWD) into the Upper Sauk River system during this flood event has the potential to increase or improve a number of other fish habitat indicators, including: pool frequency and quality; number of large (primary) pools; off-channel habitat; refugia; and floodplain connectivity.

ESA Consultation For the proposed Mountain Loop Byway repairs, Endangered Species Act consultation was initiated in 2004 between the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and (1) U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) [for Chinook salmon] and (2) U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) [for bull trout] for the four proposed repair sites. Consultation is disclosed by repair site, below:

Mileposts 33.1 and 34.8 Consultation with USFWS and NMFS on the effects of the proposed repairs at MP 33.1 and 34.8 on bull trout and Chinook occurred under the 5-Year Programmatic Biological Assessments for Forest Management: Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Letters of Concurrence on the consultations [for the Programmatic Biological Assessments] were issued by USFWS in June 2004 (Tracking Number 1- 3-04-PI-0606) and NMFS in December 2003 (Tracking Number 2002/01961). The Level 1 Team, which consists of USFWS biologists (for bull trout), NMFS biologists (for Chinook salmon,) and Forest Service biologists, reviewed the consistency of the proposed repairs at MP 33.1 and MP 34.8 with the programmatic assessment and Letters of Concurrence. The Level 1 Team signed- off on the Project Consistency Evaluation Form for the MP 33.1 and 34.8 sites on May 10, 2005, thus meeting consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act. For mileposts 33.1 and 34.8, the determination was made that the proposed project would Not Likely to Adversely Affect either Chinook salmon or bull trout, nor would the project would adversely affect critical habitat for these species. The Level 1 Team also agreed the proposed project would Not Likely to Adversely Affect essential fish habitats, pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

MP 33.6 and 35.6 Consultation with USFWS and NMFS on the effects of the proposed repairs at MP 33.6 and 35.6 of the Mountain Loop road occurred outside of the 5-Year Programmatic Biological Assessments. Biological Assessments were prepared; through formal consultation for these proposed repairs, Biological Opinions (BO) and Conference Reports were issued on August 16, 2005 from USFWS (Tracking Numbers 1-3-05-F-0368 and 1-3-05-C-0369) and October 28, 2005 from NMFS (Tracking Number 2005/00640). The August 16, 2005 document from USFWS included a conference opinion documenting consultation on effects on critical habitat for bull trout. The October 28, 2005 document 88 Fisheries – Environmental Effects

from NMFS included a conference opinion documenting consultation on likely effects on essential fish habitats, pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. It also documented required consultation on effects on critical habitat for Chinook. At mileposts 33.6 and 35.6, the risk determinations to fish species were Likely to Adversely Affect. Effects were noted as being short-term, negative impacts. The Biological Opinion and Conference Report stated that the proposed actions at both sites would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of Chinook salmon or bull trout, or result in the destruction or adverse modifications of critical habitat. Both the USFWS and NMFS issued incidental-take statements that describe measures to minimize the amount of incidental take. Incidental take was granted to the MBS with on-site monitoring of construction activities and post-construction evaluation. These measures and required monitoring are included as part of both action alternatives; see Chapter 2, Mitigation Measures, Management Practices and Requirements.

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action) – Fisheries Because no restoration or repair activities would occur if no action were implemented, the road would remain in its current condition (with the damaged road section permanently blocked; see Chapter 2). There would be no direct effect resulting from repair of the Mountain Loop, as no work would be done. During large flood events, the South Fork Sauk River would continue to washout portions of the damaged roadway; refer to Environmental Effects of No Action – Aquatic Resources and Soils, above. There is the potential for an estimated 369 cubic yards (or 498 tons) of sediment to enter the South Fork Sauk if the No Action Alternative were implemented (see, Table 3). This could occur all at once, during a very high flow, or over a decade or more with a series of smaller floods. If 369 cubic yards of sediment were to enter the South Fork Sauk all at once, there would likely be enough change in sediment load to cause channel changes. Channel changes that could affect fish habitat quality include deposition of fine sediments—both suspended sediment (an estimated 30 percent of the material) and sands and gravel (65 percent of the material). Spawning areas could be affected by the compaction of the substrate from sand and silt deposition; rearing pools would be likely to decrease in volume, as fine sediments are deposited. However, if this amount of material erodes over time—and no action is implemented—the material would be incorporated into the normally-occurring annual background sediment load of the South Fork Sauk River (which for the river system, is estimated at 31,000 tons per year). With this volume of annual background sediment, there would be no detectable or measurable change in fish behavior or to fish habitat quantity or quality. There would be no effect (short- or long-term) to fish or fish habitat from construction activities or from concussive sound generation through the water column, as no work would be done and the hydraulic rock-breaker would be needed. There would be no potential for any hydraulic or fuel spills into the river, as there would be no machinery working in or near the river. With this 2.5 mile segment of the Mountain Loop closed to vehicle traffic, there would be no potential for oil or gas contamination of the water from vehicles.

89 Fisheries – Environmental Effects

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Fisheries Overall, implementation of Alternative 2, the proposed action, would have some minor, short-term effects on fish and fish habitat (less than one year), but no long-term direct or indirect effects (greater than one year or more). Following construction activity, no long-term direct or indirect effects to fish or fish habitat would be anticipated. The Mountain Loop damaged sections would be moved into the hillside and away from the river, which would reduce: 1) the potential for future road prism failures, and 2) the erosion of sediment into the river channel (and impacting fish habitat). Short-term effects would include possible fish harm or harassment due to concussive, under-water sound wave generation from the hydraulic rock breaker (hoe ram) working on the adjacent river bank at the mileposts 33.6 and 35.6 sites—see additional discussion, below. The prescribed underwater concussive sound wave and erosion control mitigation measures that would be included as part of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) would minimize these short-term effects (see Chapter 2, Soils, Aquatics, Fisheries Mitigation Measures, Management Practices and Requirements, and Monitoring). Most of these measures come from the October 28, 2005 Biological Opinion, Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions (see BO, project files). In addition, monitoring of turbidity generated by the project construction and the concussive disturbance from the hoe ram would assure that the extent of impacts to fish would be minimized. Short-term (less than one year) sedimentation from road repair activities (primarily heavy equipment working above or adjacent to the normal high water channel) could affect fish habitat quality due to turbidity and sediment deposition in the minor amounts discussed below. The road would be moved into the hillside at all four sites (with one 60-foot long bridge installed at MP 33.6); realignment would open up new cut-slopes but for all four sites combined, less than one acre of vegetation would be removed. Failed slopes where the road washouts occurred in 2003 would be pulled back, with excess material hauled off. With implementation of prescribed erosion control measures (see Chapter 2), little erosion would be expected and little eroded material would be expected to enter the South Fork Sauk River, where it could impact fish and/or fish habitat. The erosion control and sediment mitigation measures (see Chapter 2) that would be employed, particularly Soils, Aquatics, Fisheries Measures # 1 through 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 22, and 23; and all Botany Mitigation Measures) have been used on the MBS on numerous, similar projects over the past 12 years. They have been evaluated as effective in erosion and sedimentation prevention, as discussed above. As discussed in Aquatic Resources and Soils effects, the effectiveness of the prescribed measures to prevent erosion of exposed soils is estimated at 80 percent—a figure that MBS specialists have determined would be appropriate for this project (USDA FS 1981),29 using both the literature and

29 The 80% effectiveness figure was taken from a current USDA FS guide that describes erosion control techniques for forest roads and displays the relative sediment reduction of each combination of mitigation techniques, and verified as appropriate for the Mountain Loop project by the MBS Hydrologist/Soils Scientist, based on results from similar projects and his 27 years of professional experience. In general, re-vegetation of exposed soil is fairly rapid on the MBS, but effectiveness can vary, depending upon the cut slope material, its size, and the type of surrounding vegetation. 90 Fisheries – Environmental Effects

field experience. Thus, it is anticipated that only minor amounts of sediment would actually enter the river. The total estimated sediment that could enter the river, if Alternative 2 were implemented, could be 1.8 cubic yards (or 2.3 tons) per year for the first two years, then diminishing to an insignificant amount after that. This would be the equivalent of less than four pickup-truck loads of material, against the natural background sediment of 4,400 tons of sediment from the upper Sauk River above Elliott Creek, or 31,000 tons annually from the South Fork Sauk watershed. As described under Aquatics and Soils Cumulative Effects—Assumptions, above, 30 percent of the material that could enter the South Fork Sauk would consist of suspended sediment, likely to travel about 12.4 miles per year (Bunte and MacDonald 1998). At the confluence of the South Fork Sauk with the larger North Fork Sauk River (two miles downstream from the repair site at MP 35.6), sediment from the project sites would mix with and be diluted by additional material carried in the North Fork. By 10 miles from the site at MP 35.6 and the confluence of the Sauk and White Chuck Rivers, the small amount of suspended sediment from the Mountain Loop project sites would likely be diminished and indistinguishable from other sediment picked up between the North Fork and the White Chuck. In addition, at this point in the system, this small amount of suspended sediment would be completely masked (and not measurable) by the turbidity of the glacial sediments of the White Chuck River. Any sands and gravel—estimated to be 65 percent of the 1.8 cubic yards—that could potentially enter the river—would not likely travel more than 1.2 miles per year (Bunte and MacDonald 1998). Thus, material from the upper three repair sites would likely not travel as far as the lower repair site at milepost 35.6 during the first year after the road repair. There is the potential for chemical contamination spillage from the use of heavy equipment above or adjacent to the normal high channel, over a period of a few hours within a day, spanning 2-4 days a week for one to three months (maximum at MP 33.6). However, as mitigated—see discussion above— there would be little or no effect on fish or fish habitat. Measures to protect against the possibility of fuel and other contaminant spills are also prescribed (Soils, Aquatics, Fisheries Measures # 8, 9, 10); they have been evaluated as effective in preventing heavy machinery chemical contaminant spills on similar Forest projects over the past 12 years. Removal of less than one acre of vegetation would not have any effect on temperature in the South Fork Sauk River, as described above in Aquatic Resources and Soils – Environmental Effects. All vegetation to be removed is on the opposite side of the road from the river, and with few exceptions (one large tree at MP 33.6 and several large conifers at MP 35.6, near the top of the proposed new cut slope), the trees are small in size. They do not currently shade the active river bed.

Estimated Effects at Mileposts 33.1 and 34.8, Alternative 2 Implementation of Alternative 2 at these two mileposts would not be expected to generate any sort of long-term impacts to fish or fish habitat. The road realignment at each milepost would involve earth-moving equipment, but work would occur well above the normal high-water channel. No rip-rap would be added at MP 33.1 (not needed), or at MP 34.8, as there is already large rock present.

91 Fisheries – Environmental Effects

The proposed action would not likely adversely affect either Chinook salmon or bull trout, nor would the project affect Chinook critical habitat.

Estimated Effects at Mileposts 33.6 and 35.6–Alternative 2 The potential for short term fishery effects to occur at these sites would be minor and short-term in duration, on the order of one month total for work at MP 35.6 and three months total at MP 33.6 (Hamilton pers. comm. 2006). At MP 33.6, very large rock (4.5 to five feet diameter and 8,000 to 14,000 pounds) is proposed for 50 linear feet at this repair site, to protect the fill just upstream of the new bridge. The rock would be keyed in between existing large boulders and bedrock. The amount of material to be placed is less than what existed prior to the 2003 flood. There is a risk that placement of rock could harm fish or cause them to flee the site, though most fish would avoid the construction site (USDC NMFS 2005). At MP 35.6, the elevation of the large rock to be placed would be out of the bank-full elevation of the river. There could be short-term effects (fish harm or harassment) from the hydraulic rock breaker (hoe ram) working on the adjacent river bank at MP 33.6 and 35.6. As the hoe ram breaks up bedrock, vibrations would pass through the rock into the water; the underwater sound pressure waves can impact fish (adult and juvenile Chinook). This underwater vibration impact would be very short-term—a period of two to five days during project construction, as the equipment is used to level and prepare bedrock at MP 33.6 for the bridge abutments, and at MP 35.6, to provide a flat surface for placing the very large rock that will support the new road alignment. Injuries to fish are poorly studied (USDC NMFS 2005). The spatial extent of these potential short-term effects is estimated at up to 300 feet of river channel, immediately below the repair site. The prescribed underwater concussive sound wave and erosion control mitigation measures that would be included as part of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) would minimize these short-term effects (see Chapter 2, Soils, Aquatics, Fisheries Mitigation Measures, Management Practices and Requirements, and Monitoring). Most of these measures come from the October 28, 2005 Biological Opinion, Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions (see BO, project files). In addition, monitoring of turbidity generated by the project construction and the concussive disturbance from the hoe ram would assure that the extent of impacts to fish would be minimized; see Chapter 2, Required Monitoring.

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 3–Fisheries Overall, implementation of Alternative 3 would have some minor, short-term effects on fish and fish habitat (less than one year), but no long-term direct or indirect effects (greater than one year or more). As the construction work would take longer, the risk of potential chemical contamination spillage from the use of heavy equipment above or adjacent to the normal high channel may be higher. However, as mitigated—see discussion above—there would be little or no effect on fish or fish habitat. Measures to protect against the possibility of fuel and other contaminant spills are also prescribed (Soils, Aquatics, Fisheries Measures # 8, 9, 10); they have been evaluated as effective in preventing heavy machinery chemical contaminant spills on similar Forest projects over the past 12 years.

92 Fisheries – Environmental Effects

Removal of about 0.4 acre of vegetation would not have any effect on temperature in the South Fork Sauk River, as described above in Effects, Aquatic Resources and Soils. All vegetation to be removed is on the opposite side of the road from the river; the trees are small in size and do not currently shade the active river bed. Following construction activity, no long-term direct or indirect effects to fish or fish habitat would be anticipated, and both the potential for future road prism failures, and erosion of sediment into the river channel (and impacting fish habitat) would be reduced.

Estimated Effects at Mileposts 33.1 and 34.8, Alternative 3 At mileposts 33.1 and 34.8, the implications for fish and fish habitat if Alternative 3 were implemented would be the same as those disclosed for Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), above.

Estimated Effects at Mileposts 33.6 and 35.6, Alternative 3 At mileposts 33.6 and 35.6, where long, multi-span bridges would be constructed over the damaged road portions, the estimated effects and implications for fish and fish habitat differ in Alternative 3. There would be more short-term (less than one year) estimated effects from project-generated sediment; see Table 4, above, for estimated sediment amounts. The diked-in work areas (made of gravel bags or other clean material) and temporary access roads for large machinery for the bridges would be needed for more than a month during the summer low-flow season. As disclosed in Effects of Aquatic Resources and Soils, removal of both the temporary roads and the dikes has the potential to add to the material left in the river channel. Fish migration, spawning, and rearing could be impacted by the construction and removal of the dikes. The estimated amount of potential sediment if Alternative 3 were implemented—19 cubic yards (26 tons) at MP 33.6 and 24 cubic yards (33 tons) annually for the first year or two following construction—is still small amount compared to the naturally-occurring background sediment in the South Fork Sauk (8,800 tons at Elliott Creek, or 31,000 tons for the entire river system). This additional project-generated sediment and has the potential to cause fish habitat displacement for salmon and trout. An estimated 30 percent of this material would be suspended sediments (based on field surveys on the MBS). It could travel about 12.4 miles the first year (Bunte and MacDonald 1998). About two miles downstream of the repair at MP 35.6, sediments carried from the Mountain Loop project would be diluted and mixed with those materials from the large North Fork Sauk River. By the time suspended sediment reaches the confluence with the White Chuck River (10 river miles downstream), it would be completed masked by the turbidity of the glacial sediment in the White Chuck. There could be short-term effects (fish harm or harassment) from the equipment used to drill the large shafts for the four-five foot diameter, circular piers for the long bridges at these two sites. As the bedrock is drilled, vibrations would pass through the rock into the water; the underwater sound pressure waves can impact fish (adult and juvenile Chinook). This underwater vibration impact would be longer in duration that the rock breaking proposed in Alternative 2 – an estimated two to three months of work for both sites (Hamilton pers. comm. 2006). The spatial extent of these potential short-term effects is estimated at up to 300 feet of river channel, immediately below repair sites.

93 Fisheries – Environmental Effects

The prescribed underwater concussive sound wave and erosion control mitigation measures that would be included as part of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) would minimize these short-term effects (see Chapter 2, Soils, Aquatics, Fisheries Mitigation Measures, Management Practices and Requirements, and Monitoring). Most of these measures come from the October 28, 2005 Biological Opinion, Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions (see BO, project files). Following construction activities, no long-term direct or indirect effects to fish or fish habitat would be expected. All of the bridge piers would be outside of the river channel and would not impact channel migration. However, the piers would interact with flood flows and could change flow characteristics around the bridge sites and possibly trap sediment and debris. The potential for future road prism failure and erosion of sediment into the South Fork Sauk River channel (and impacting fish habitat) would be reduced.

Fisheries Cumulative Effects Table 8, below, shows the determination of potential cumulative effects for fisheries. Included are those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the Mountain Loop vicinity that overlap with the road repair project effects on fish/fish habitat in at least one variable of time or space. (Also see Appendix C – Cumulative Effects Analysis.) In considering cumulative impacts to fish/fish habitat, the potential effect of most concern is suspended sediment. As noted in the Biological Opinion for chinook, some activities would impact the fisheries resource for only 300 feet upstream and downstream of the construction work; placing rock and grading and excavating soil would be expected to cause temporary, very short-term effects, and would impact an extremely limited extent of the fish habitat used, in the larger watershed. Suspended sediment that is deposited in spawning areas can degrade habitat conditions in the intra- gravel environment. Sedimentation may also occur as the river adjusts to newly-placed rock (USDC NMFS 2005). During the first high flows following completion of the road repair work, sediment on the stream margin would be mobilized and combined with the background turbidity of the river. As disclosed in the Aquatic Resources and Soils, Cumulative Effect, suspended sediment would be expected to travel about 12.4 miles per year (Bunte and MacDonald 1998).The minor amounts30 of suspended sediment from the Mountain Loop project that may enter the South Fork Sauk River system would travel downstream to the White Chuck River (about 10 river miles from the site at MP 35.6), and likely beyond with the first high water in the fall. Not all of this material would be expected to enter the system at the same time. There are numerous other natural sources of lacustrine clay exposed in unstable river banks between the four repair sites and the White Chuck River (including the Bedal landslide), which would all contribute to suspended sediment in the river system. At the confluence of the South Fork with the larger North Fork Sauk (two miles downstream from MP 35.6), sediments from the Mountain Loop would be diluted and mixed with additional material from the North Fork. When suspended sediment

30 The annual estimated sediment input for all four repair sites would range from a total of 1.8 cubic yards (or 2.3 tons) in Alternative 2, to 43.6 cubic yards (or 59.8 tons) in Alternative 3. An estimated 30 percent of this material would be suspended sediment (Bunte and MacDonald 1998). However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures, the amount of material that would likely enter the river system is even less—estimated at five percent or about a three-gallon bucket for Alternative 2. 94 Fisheries – Environmental Effects

from the repair activities reaches the White Chuck River (10 river miles downstream from the lower repair site at MP 35.6), they would be completely masked by the turbidity of the glacial sediments in the White Chuck (not measurable). One or two years after the repairs are completed, project-related sediment would diminish to insignificant amounts; see Table 4, in Aquatic Resources and Soils. Sedimentation from the proposed Mountain Loop Byway repairs could have a cumulative effect on fish/fish habitat if there is overlap spatially and temporally with the effects of other past, current, or proposed future projects. Given the above assumptions, very few other projects in the Sauk River system would overlap the area of potential cumulative effects for fish, as shown in Table 8, below. Table 8–Fisheries Cumulative Effects Determination for Projects in the Sauk and White Chuck Rivers Project Potential Overlap in Measurable Extent, Effects Time Space Cumulative Detectable? Effect? Skull/Funnybone Suspended Completion timing is Commercial Sediment uncertain. Estimated Thinning Sale that operations No Yes No would resume 1 year after Mtn. Loop repairs are completed. Lyle Suspended Project completed. Commercial Sediment No remaining Thinning Sale sediment effects, No Yes No due to mitigation implemented during the thinning. Proposed Suspended Potential exists for Forgotten Thin Sediment suspended sedi- Plus, Commercial ment to mix with Thinning Sale sediment from Bedal Culvert, Mtn. Loop, and back- Yes Yes Yes ground sediment. If thinning sale implemented more than two years after Mtn. Loop completed, no overlap in time. Decommissioning Suspended On-going, long-term of Roads 2080, Sediment improvement work 2083, 2084, No Yes No for sediment 2086, 2087 reduction. There may be an overlap in timing of construction; any Proposed ERFO Suspended Not suspended Repair of White Yes Yes Sediment measurable sediment would not Chuck Road 23 be measurable past confluence of Sauk and White Chuck R.

95 Fisheries – Environmental Effects

Project Potential Overlap in Measurable Extent, Effects Time Space Cumulative Detectable? Effect? Effects would be small; any overlap in time depends on Ongoing road timing of work and maintenance of Suspended subsequent storms. Mountain Loop Yes Yes Yes Sediment One to two years from Barlow Pass after Mtn. Loop to Bedal Creek repairs done, there would be no overlap in time. This is a long term Bedal Creek Suspended Improvement for Culvert removal Sediment No Yes No sediment reduction. (Road 4096) Road 4096 This is a long term Suspended Decommission Improvement for Sediment No Yes No and convert to sediment reduction. trail There could be Monte Cristo, minor amounts of Suspended Road 4710 bridge suspended sedi- Sediment Yes Yes Yes replacement and ment if this project road repair occurs at the same time as Mtn. Loop. There may be an overlap in timing of construction; any Gold Mountain suspended Road Repair, Suspended sediment would not Yes Yes No Including White Sediment be measurable past Chuck Bridge confluence of Sauk and White Chuck Rivers.

For this cumulative effects analysis, the following projects have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects to fish/fish habitat by contributing sediment to the river system:

96 Fisheries – Environmental Effects

Proposed Forgotten Thin Plus Commercial Thinning Sale This proposed project proposes a commercial thin of between 107 and 533 acres of trees (average age 63 years) in the vicinity of Peek-a-Boo Creek and Falls Creek, about six miles downstream from the lower Mountain Loop repair site at MP 35.6. A Revised Environmental Assessment should be released for public comment in 2006; a decision is also expected this year. There would be an estimated potential, maximum increase of 94 tons of sediment the first year for Forgotten Thin Plus (see Aquatic Resources and Soils Cumulative Effects for more). There is the potential for overlap with the sediment produced in the first two years of repair work for Mountain Loop—if Forgotten Thin Plus is implemented within two year of the Mountain Loop. The very small amounts of suspended sediment could impact fish/fish habitat, though the estimated sediment from the road repair work would be miniscule (Alternative 2) compared to the 94 tons from Forgotten Thin Plus, and especially compared to the natural sediment. Alternative 3, if implemented, would produce half of the potential sediment of Forgotten Thin. If implementation of the thinning sale were delayed, there would be no overlap in time and therefore, no cumulative effect.

On-going Mountain Loop Road Maintenance Maintaining the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway—once the four damaged sites are repaired—from Barlow Pass (Forest Road 4710) to Bedal Creek would include blading and brushing the road surface, and necessitate maintaining the existing berms near milepost 35, as discussed in Aquatic Resources and Soils Cumulative Effects. No maintenance (blading) of the Mountain Loop Byway in the project area is expected until the repair work is completed. If a storm occurred within one or two weeks of the maintenance and completion of the Mountain Loop repairs, there is the possibility of a cumulative effects that could impact fish/fish habitat. However, it is difficult to quantify the effect: much of the material that washes from the road surface deposits alongside the roadway. The remainder may enter ephemeral or perennial channels, where additional deposition occurs. A small amount of suspended material may enter the South Fork Sauk River, where (and when) the flush of the sediment from the Mountain Loop repair work would be occurring. However, this small amount of sediment generated would be completely masked by the background sediment in the river. After one to two years following the Mountain Loop repairs, there would be no cumulative effect (no overlap temporally). Past Bedal Creek, the Mountain Loop is positioned on higher terraces, away from the South Fork Sauk River. In this location, road maintenance would have no affect on channel migration or streamside shade and the effects on sediment delivery are limited to the crossing of tributary streams. However, the majority of these tributary stream crossings have been upgraded in recent years and road sediment delivery is minimal.

Proposed Monte Cristo Bridge Replacement For the proposed replacement of the second washed-out bridge (and repair of a landslide) on Road 4710 to the old town site of Monte Cristo, no implementation date can be estimated. (See Aquatic Resources and Soils Cumulative Effects for a description). The Monte Cristo Preservation Association would like to replace the bridge and repair the road, but do not have the funding to do so. There are no residual effects from the replacement of the first bridge, which was completed about seven years ago. If

97 Riparian Reserve Resources – Affected Environment

implemented, the bridge replacement could generate some fine sediment, including lacustrine clays, which would move down to the South Fork Sauk to the Mountain Loop project area and have the potential to impact fish/fish habitat in the project area. The quantities would be small and short lived (a few days). The landslide across the road is out of the river channel and would not affect sediments in the rivers. If this project does not occur simultaneously with implementation of the Mountain Loop Byway repair work, there would be no cumulative effect.

Note on the Repair of Gold Mountain Road Repair, Including the White Chuck Bridge, and Proposed White Chuck Road 23 Repair These repairs are located downstream from the Mountain Loop: the White Chuck Bridge (part of the approved Gold Mountain Road Repair) is located very near the confluence of the Sauk and the White Chuck Rivers, roughly nine miles downstream from the lower Mountain Loop repair site at MP 35.6. The rest of the Gold Mountain road repairs are located along the Road 22 system (further away from the Mountain Loop. The first of four damaged sites on White Chuck Road 23 is located nearly two miles from the confluence of the two rivers. (Environmental analysis to repair Road 23 is underway, with a preliminary EA expected to be released for public comment in the spring of 2006.). Although the potential exists for cumulative effects from suspended sediments from these proposed repairs and those from the Mountain Loop road repairs—depending upon temporal overlap with the project construction activities—the size of the effect would not be measurable. As mitigated, only small amounts of suspended sediments are expected to result from the Gold Mountain repairs (short term, one to two years, less than four cubic yards of suspending solids; see Gold Mountain EA). For White Chuck: although the analysis has not yet been completed, no more than four to six cubic yards of sediment (two to three tons) would be expected from the work. No work is planned in the low flow channel; the only direct introduction of sediment would be during construction of the culvert crossing on an unnamed tributary, and from the movements of an excavator on gravel bars during large wood placement on the river floodplain. The use of Best Management Practices would minimize erosion and sedimentation. The small amount of suspended sediment from the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway repair project would be fully diluted and obscured once the White Chuck and Sauk Rivers converge, resulting in no measurable cumulative effect with these other ERFO projects. Riparian Reserve Resources – Affected Environment As noted in Chapter 1, this 2.5 mile long segment of road, including the four flood-damaged sites, is located within the Riparian Reserve (plus LSR at MP 33.1, and plus Wild and Scenic River at mileposts 33.6, 34.8, and 35.6). This land allocation was established with the 1994 Plan amendment (USDA FS. USDI BLM 1994). Note that the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway has been designated as a highway since 1961 (Forest Highway 7, FHWA records) and as a National Forest Scenic Byway since 1990. The project area lies within a Tier 1, Key Watershed: the Sauk River Forks. Watershed analysis has been completed: Sauk River and Sauk River Forks Watershed Analysis (USDA FS 1996). No adjustments (via NEPA analysis) have been made to the initial Reserve boundaries, as described in the 1994 Plan Amendment (USDA FS, USDI BLM 1994). The South Fork Sauk River is a fish-bearing stream; the width of the Reserve includes the river and approximately 360 feet on either side of the river—or the distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees.31

31 Riparian Reserves consist of the stream and the area on either side of the stream, extending from the edges of the active channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to a distance equal to the height of 98 Riparian Reserve Resources – Environmental Effects

The open road density in the 78,800-acre Sauk River Forks fifth-field watershed is roughly 0.31 miles per square mile (USDA FS 1996), considerably lower than the one-mile per square mile open road density that some studies advocated (to reduce impacts on wildlife use of an area, etc.). There are no MBS Forest Plan standards for road density for the land allocations in the project area; refer to the text box in Chapter 2. There are very few roads other than the Mountain Loop in the immediate vicinity of the damaged sites; they include Road 4710 (Monte Cristo Road) which is closed to public vehicles, the 0.75 mile of Road 4080 at Elliott Creek (the rest was closed and converted to trail), and Road 4096 from Bedal Creek, which is partially open and drivable for about two miles. While this segment of the Mountain Loop Byway has been closed to vehicle traffic since the October 2003 flood event, it remains a system road and is still considered a road.

Channel Dynamics and the Riparian Reserve When a river migrates across the valley, streamside vegetation is affected. Trees growing on the streambank are toppled into the river as the bank erodes. These trees, in turn, created channel complexity that absorbs stream energy and creates high-quality aquatic habitat. Streamside trees are often small (young), because channel dynamics do not allow for long periods of stability for large trees to grow. But at some point, as the channel moves across the valley, old trees on river terraces near the river are also affected. The 2003 flood brought several large trees into the South Fork Sauk when the river under-cut older terraces. Roads that parallel a river, such as the Mountain Loop Byway, may actually interrupt the recruitment of large trees into the river. Some trees that would be in the streamside zone are not there, due to the presence of the road. During flood events, the river rarely erodes all the way through the road and into the adjacent hillside where it would recruit trees. Recruitment of trees is generally limited to those growing between the road and the river. Trees that fall onto the road from the top of the cut slope do not end up in the river because during road maintenance, such trees are cut into smaller pieces and removed. Refer to the discussion in Aquatic Resources and Soils, above, for additional affected environment discussion, as well as the discussion/effects disclosure in the Fisheries, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wildlife sections of this EA.

Riparian Reserve Resources – Environmental Effects Also, refer to the Aquatic Resources and Soils, Fisheries, and Wildlife environmental effects sections. Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action) – Riparian Reserve Resources If no action were taken at the damaged sites, no restoration activities would take place. Rather than being realigned further from the active river channel—especially the higher-risk sites at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6—the road would remain in its current condition and would be permanently blocked at each end of the damaged portion. There would be no upgrading of drainage structures to meet current Forest Plan standards and guidelines (see Relevant Goals, Standards and Guidelines, Chapter 1). The damage

two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet total, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest. A site-potential tree height is the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or older) for a given site class (USDA FS, USDI BLM page C-3). The two site-tree heights has been determined as greatest. 99 Riparian Reserve Resources – Environmental Effects

2.5 mile segment of the Mountain Loop would be removed from the Forest transportation system; any change in open road densities at the fifth-field watershed scale would not be measurable. As discussed under the effects of implementing Alternative 1 (No Action) on aquatic resources and soils, the damaged portions of the Mountain Loop would continue to wash out during high water flows and major flood events, particularly at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6. Berms separating the South Fork Sauk River from the Mountain Loop would eventually break down, as there would be no road maintenance to repair them. The river, at some point, would breach the berms and occupy the roadway location. Road fill would also continue to be lost at mileposts 33.1 and 34.8. The sediment that could be delivered to the South Fork Sauk would be estimated at 369 cubic yards (498 tons), over the time period of a decade or more or possibly all at once, during a very high flow (see Table 3, page 55). This amount is against a background of 31,000 tons annually, for the South Fork Sauk system. If all 369 cubic yards entered at once, there would likely be channel changes. While the estimated amounts are a magnitude greater than if Alternatives 2 or 3 were implemented, suspended sediments (mobilized during the first high water event) would likely be masked by the turbid water of the White Chuck River—which is filled with glacial sediments—roughly 10 miles downstream of the damage site at MP 35.6. Due to river migration, there would be an estimated loss of one additional acre of young, mixed coniferous/deciduous forest habitat. As recreation use is estimated to remain high, vegetation would reestablish on no more than eight of the 14 feet of the abandoned roadbed width, over time. Therefore, there would be a net increase of about 0.9 acres of this habitat. If the abandoned road were not ripped, trees that would colonize the road surface would be stunted due to the compacted growing site.32 This would limit their growth into large wood material and the associated values they would provide in the distant future. Most of the trees on the hill-slope above the road (and away from the river) are currently small stands, with a few large trees and seven legacy trees, up the slope at milepost 35.6. Given that the size of the Riparian Reserve for this 2.5 mile stretch is estimated at 109 acres on the road side of the river,33 the changes in riparian vegetation would be very small: less than one percent of the Riparian area. Refer to Fisheries, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wildlife for the additional effects.

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 – Riparian Reserve Resources For riparian resources, implementation of either of the action alternatives would result in realignment of the Mountain Loop away from the South Fork Sauk River (and at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6, it would be realigned as far away as the topography allows). In addition, culverts would be upgraded (meeting current Plan standards, especially RF-4; see Chapter 1). Construction of a bridge at MP 33.6, tied to bedrock, would span portions of the road damage. In Alternative 2, large rock (8,000 to 14,000 pounds) would be placed to retain fill materials at the bridge approaches—but the volume of rip-rap would be less than existed before the 2003 flood. Refer to Chapter 2, Proposed Action for details. The long, multi-span bridge proposed in Alternative 3 would be anchored to bedrock; the piers would interact with flood flows.

32 Ketcheson, personal observation from road decommissioning experiences on the MBS. 33 The 2.5-mile stretch of river equals a Riparian Reserve length of 13,200 feet, along each side of the river; the total square feet of riparian reserve on the road side of the river is 4,752,000 sq. ft. or 109 acres (not including wet areas or side channels that could extent the riparian reserve boundary). 100 Riparian Reserve Resources – Environmental Effects

The total amount of vegetation to be removed at the four sites would range from 0.95 acres in Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) to an estimated maximum of 0.4 acres in Alternative 3. This represents less than one percent of the Riparian Reserve acres in the overall project area. With the exception of a few larger trees and seven legacy trees that would be removed at MP 35.6 in Alternative 2, most of this mixed coniferous/deciduous forest is small second growth (less than 8 inches DBH). All vegetation that would be removed is on the opposite side of the road from the river; the trees currently do not shade the active river bed, so their removal would not affect stream temperature. In addition, the loss of less than two acres of mixed coniferous/deciduous forest habitat in small scattered areas along the 2.5 mile segment would be expected to have only slight changes in wildlife habitat; see Wildlife Effects for more. There is little vegetation on the river side of the road, at the four damaged sites, that would be affected by the proposed repairs; most of the vegetation has already been removed by previous floods and/or repairs. Therefore, there would be no measurable effect on riparian function from what it is now. Since there is no functioning riparian area between the Mountain Loop and the South Fork Sauk to filter sediment and other contaminants, water running off the road runs directly into the river. If the repairs are implemented, ditches (or in-sloping of the road edge) on the hill-slope side of the road would carry road runoff to vegetated areas on either side of the repair sites (filtering out contaminants and preserving water quality). There would be no change from the current, post-2003 flood event road density. Road densities in the Sauk River Forks fifth-field watershed would remain at roughly 0.31 miles per square mile (USDA FS 1996).

Riparian Reserve Cumulative Effects Past, other current, and proposed projects within Riparian Reserve in the Mountain Loop vicinity were assessed for potential impacts that would cumulatively overlap with the effects on Riparian Reserves from th e proposed Mountain Loop Byway repair project. Also, refer to Cumulative Effects for Aquatic Resources and Soils, Fisheries, Wildlife, and also Wild and Scenic Rivers. Several projects have the potential to overlap spatially with the direct, minor impacts to Riparian Reserves from the proposed Mountain Loop repair. Since vegetation alteration effects on Riparian Reserves are long term—they may last several decades—the time scale is longer than for some resources. Timber sales from the 1960’s through the 1980’s removed trees from many miles of streams in the Upper Sauk River watershed. However, these harvest areas (including harvest of riparian areas, along with the early timber harvesting in the Sauk drainage, from 1922 to the 1960’s, are maturing. The Sauk River/Sauk River Forks Watershed Analysis (USDA FS 1996) analyzed seral stages in Riparian Reserves, and found the following: ƒ In the Sauk River Forks watershed, 75 percent of the Riparian Reserves had forest stands of mid- seral and older classes (25 years to 400 or more years). ƒ In the Sauk River watershed, 72 percent of the Reserves had mid-seral and older forest stands. These forests provide adequate shade for temperature control, root strength for stream bank stability, and filtering of potential pollutants. Stands ranging in age from 25 to 100 years are not good sources of large wood recruitment; most of these younger stands are downstream of the Mountain Loop project.

101 Riparian Reserve Resources – Environmental Effects

Because of the Watershed Analysis conclusions and the minor effects of the proposed project on riparian functions, not all timber sales dating back to the 1960’s were evaluated for cumulative effects. In addition, more recent timber sales (since the late 1980’s) have incorporated some type of riparian protection; since the 1994 Forest Plan amendment (USDA, USDI 1994 “The Northwest Forest Plan”), all sales have incorporated the Riparian Reserve standards and guidelines to protect riparian functions and riparian-dependent species. Timber sales such as Skull/Funnybone, the proposed Forgotten Thin, and the completed Lyle Thin are located within the Upper Sauk River drainage, but have had or will have “no treatment” zones within Riparian Reserves and mitigation measures in place that result in no detrimental impacts to Riparian Reserve resources. The proposed White Chuck ERFO repair (Forest Road 23), and the replacement of the White Chuck Bridge are within the cumulative effects area, but located over 10 miles from the lower Mountain Loop damage site (MP 35.6). Repairs there involve a situation similar to Mountain Loop: the existing road lies within the Riparian Reserve; repair (and some relocation) of this route will include removal of some trees. However, that project will also benefit riparian values, as culverts are upgraded, roads are decommissioned—and some moved up slope, away from the valley bottom. New bridge piers would be located out of the active river channel. The effects are so small to this resource that there would be no cumulative impact with the minor effects to Riparian Reserves from implementing the proposed Mountain Loop repairs. Past road decommissioning of Roads 2080, etc. are also located at least 10 miles downstream of the Mountain Loop project, and no cumulative effect is anticipated. (And once that work was completed, former road features would be growing vegetation and trees, even if those trees were growing on a compacted growing site.)

Proposed Monte Cristo Bridge Replacement As discussed above, this project would involve replacement of the second washed-out bridge (and repair of a landslide) on Road 4710 to the old town site of Monte Cristo, about three miles upstream from the repair site at MP 33.1. The Monte Cristo Preservation Association would like to replace the bridge and repair the road, but do not have the funding to do so; therefore, no implementation date can be estimated. If there is no overlap in time with the Mountain Loop byway repair work, there would be no cumulative effect on the Riparian Reserve. If the timing does overlap, the bridge would be rebuilt in the same location, with no impact to vegetation in the riparian reserve (and no cumulative effects with the Mountain Loop project). The landslide is located across the road, out of the river channel. Its removal would not affect sediments in the rivers, and would likely have such minimal impact to the Riparian Reserve that there would likely be no measurable cumulative effect (and none at all if this project does not occur simultaneously with implementation of the Mountain Loop road repair work).

102 Wild and Scenic River – Affected Environment

Wild and Scenic River – Affected Environment The Sauk River segment of the Skagit Wild and Scenic River system is 50.8 miles in length. This designation extends from its confluence with the Skagit River at Rockport south to, and including, the North Fork Sauk River to the boundary of the Glacier Peak Wilderness, and the South Fork Sauk River to its terminus near Elliot Creek—close to the repair site at milepost 33.6. Refer to Figure 25, below, Chapter 1; also, see Appendix D and the Specialist Report, in the project files. The designation encompasses a river corridor approximately one-quarter mile wide, on each side of the river channel. See the River Management Plan, Final: Skagit River (USDA FS 1983) for a detailed boundary description. There are roads running parallel to the Sauk River for most of its length; the roads predate the river’s wild and scenic designation (1978). The Sauk River portion of the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway generally follows the course of the river. The Skagit Wild and Scenic River Study Report (USDA FS 1977) found the Sauk River eligible to be included in the Skagit System with the classification of Scenic due to the forested shoreline, a low percentage of paralleling roads, and the overall scenic nature of the area. The Interagency Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification, and Management of River Areas (47 FR 39454) provides classification criteria for Wild and Scenic Rivers. Scenic segments may be accessible in places by road; roads may occasionally reach or bridge the river. Short stretches of conspicuous or longer stretches of inconspicuous roads (or railroads) are acceptable (47 FR 39454, Sec. III, Table 2). The river is free-flowing (with no impoundments) and the water quality of the river is high and unimpaired. Section 16(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act defines free-flowing: free-flowing as applied to any river or section of a river, means existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River system shall not automatically bar its consideration for such inclusion: provided that this shall not be construed to authorize, intend, or encourage future construction of such structures within components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system. The Skagit Wild and Scenic River system is managed to protect and enhance the free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values (fisheries, wildlife, and scenic quality) for which the river was designated, while providing for public recreation and resource uses that do not adversely impact or degrade those values.

103 Wild and Scenic River – Affected Environment

Figure 25– Wild and Scenic River Corridor Boundary and Mountain Loop Repair Sites

# Mountain Loop Repair Sites ² k Me r Cree ry tin Broo Mar T. 30 N k Skagit Wild and Scenic River Corridor 4

016 0 015

9

Henry M. Jackson Wilderness 6 018 017 013 20

# Per MP 35.6 ry Cr eek

y a w B h e ig d al H C p re o 022 ek k River 021 u o a L 019 in 020 a ek Fork S t 024 re th n C u u ck So o Bu M

# MP 34.8

k

e

e r

R. 11 E. C

h

c

i

w

c

o

h C

027 029 028 030 MP 33.1 MP 33.6 025 # # 0 8 0 4 E ll io tt C re ek

033 034 036 031 032

104 Wild and Scenic River – Affected Environment

Outstandingly Remarkable Values The Sauk, like all the rivers in the Skagit Wild and Scenic System, possesses the outstandingly remarkable values of fish, scenery, and wildlife (USDA FS 1977). The Skagit system is one of the least developed river basins in Puget Sound and thus retains habitat that is relatively intact and functioning, and scenery that is largely natural. The values of the Sauk River were not distinguished from the other rivers in the study; they are discussed below, in general terms.

Fishery As discussed above (see Fisheries), there are two federally-listed fish species in the Mountain Loop project area (Chinook salmon and native char—bull trout and Dolly Varden). Coho salmon, a Regional Sensitive Species and candidate for federal listing, is also found, along with: steelhead, sockeye, pink salmon, coastal cutthroat trout, and – from limited observations—chum salmon.

Wildlife Wildlife species of interest in the project area include the following federally-listed threatened and endangered species: grizzly bear, northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, bald eagle, and potentially gray wolf. Eagle use of this segment of the Sauk river system is minimal due to a relative lack of food sources. See Wildlife discussion, below. Other species include Management Indicator species (deer, mountain goat, pine marten, and woodpeckers) and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (Townsend’s big-eared bat and wolverine). Wolverine would not be expected to be found in the project area, due to high levels of human use. Elk are not known to occur in the Upper Sauk River. Some land birds, including neo-tropical migratory birds, use the mixed conifer/deciduous forests found in the project area.

Scenery The scenic values of the river are outstanding. Mountain peaks, avalanche chutes, glaciers, and steep rugged forested slopes are visible in the background. The foreground views include tributary streams, side channels, large conifers, stands of cottonwood, alder, rustic campsites, small clusters of recreation residences, and a developed campground adjacent to the river. Forest management activities are occasionally visible from the Sauk River and the South Fork Sauk River, particularly downstream of Bedal Creek where timber management has occurred since the 1940’s. In the project vicinity, above Bedal Creek, the valley is very narrow and the only developed access is from the Mountain Loop Byway. As noted above, the Mountain Loop has been in place in the valley for decades, and pre-dates the Wild and Scenic River classification. Along the along the gravel portion of the road, exposed or bare ground is not uncommon. The upstream limit of most water-borne recreation on the Sauk River is at the Bedal Campground, at the confluence of the North and South Fork Sauk Rivers—and roughly two miles downstream from the project area. The four road damage sites are not visible from the river for the majority of on-river recreation use.

105 Wild and Scenic River – Environmental Effects

Flood Damage and the Wild and Scenic River The Sauk valley is very narrow in the section damaged by the 2003 flood event. The Mountain Loop is constructed on the east side of the valley, up against the valley wall. Within the confines of these steep slopes, the Sauk channel is very dynamic due to its natural, high sediment load. The channel is braided and the main flow periodically shifts back and forth, often occupying two or three channels. With the exception of areas where berms (dikes) were built in the floodplain to protect the road (such as between mileposts 35 and 35.4), the road does not appear to constrain the movement of the river channel because it is located on a high terrace above the river, or over bedrock, outside of the floodplain. Two of the four proposed flood repair sites (mileposts 34.8 and 35.6) are within the designated Wild and Scenic River corridor. The site at MP 33.6 is very near the terminal boundary of the river corridor at Elliott Creek. As noted earlier in this EA, because this boundary has not been surveyed, for the purposes of this analysis the repair site at MP 33.6 is being treated as if it is within the Wild and Scenic River corridor. Refer to Figure 25, above. The repair site at milepost 33.1 is outside the river corridor (upstream). Milepost 33.6 has been rip-rapped in the past, following earlier floods. The most recent documented occurrence was in November of 1995: the damaged section of road was repaired with approximately 1600 cubic yards of rip-rap. A section of the Mountain Loop about one-half mile from MP 35.6 was damaged in the 1995 flood. The toe of the road fill was washed away; it was repaired with approximately 950 cubic yards of rip-rap. There has been no previous flood damage at or near milepost 34.8.

Wild and Scenic River – Environmental Effects The estimated effects of implementing any of the three alternatives, as they pertain to the Wild and Scenic River corridor are disclosed below. The proposed repair (or not) of the damage site at milepost 33.1 is not included in this section, as it falls outside of the designated Wild and Scenic River corridor. As discussed in Chapter 1, Other Relevant Laws and Direction, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act addresses the evaluation of water resource projects within the National Forest System. ƒ Only the proposed repairs at milepost 33.6, Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) meet the definition of a water resources project, in that the proposed activities are federally assisted and within the bed and bank of the South Fork Sauk River. Section 7 of the Act provides the authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate and make a determination on water resources projects that affect wild and scenic rivers. The authority for that determination for projects on National Forest System lands is delegated to the Forest Supervisor (FS Manual 2350).

Section 7(a) Determination A Section 7 (a) determination has been completed and is included in this EA as Appendix D. The determination found that the proposed project (Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) at milepost 33.6) does not have an adverse effect on the free-flowing condition, water quality, or the values for which the river was designated.

106 Wild and Scenic River – Environmental Effects

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1-No Action – Wild and Scenic River Refer to the earlier discussion of Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action), Aquatic Resources and Soils, and also Fisheries for additional effects disclosure. If no repairs of any kind were made to the road segments damaged by the October 2003 flood event, the existing condition would remain as it is. The South Fork Sauk River has already migrated to bedrock walls at the proposed repair sites at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6; therefore, further migration inland would be limited to those locations where bedrock is not exposed. The channel could continue to shift laterally across the width of the existing floodplain to the extent that the remaining road segments allow. Due to the large size of the channel materials (boulders), the river channel would not be expected to migrate laterally except during very large flood events. The amount of migration at the damage sites would be small, but there may be considerable channel migration elsewhere in the river system, depending upon the nature of the bank material and the influence of large wood in the river. As discussed in Aquatic Resources and Soils effects, implementing the No Action Alternative would result in an estimated 498 tons (or 369 cubic yards) of sediment that may be generated from the continued erosion at all four damage sites. Estimated sediment that could enter the South Fork Sauk River from the three damage sites located within the Wild and Scenic corridor would be 428 tons (or 317 cubic yards). This could occur all at once during a very high flow, or over a decade or more, in s series of smaller floods. (Note that the annual, natural background sediment production for the river system is 31,000 tons.) If no action were taken, the effects on the outstandingly remarkable value of fisheries would be as discussed in the Effects of No Action – Fisheries. If the total estimated sediment were to enter the South Fork Sauk all at once, there would likely be enough change in sediment load to cause channel changes that could affect fish habitat quality, including deposition of fine sediments—both suspended sediment (an estimated 30 percent of the material) and sands and gravel (65 percent of the material). Spawning areas could be affected by the compaction of the substrate from sand and silt deposition; rearing pools would be likely to decrease in volume, as fine sediments are deposited. However, if this amount of material erodes over time, it would be incorporated into the normally- occurring annual background sediment load of the South Fork Sauk. With the large volume of annual background sediment, there would be no detectable or measurable change in fish behavior or to fish habitat quantity or quality. Refer to Effects, Wildlife, below. If no action were taken, there would be a minor amount (about one acre) of habitat lost or impacted due to continued bank erosion at the four damage sites. With predicted high recreation use of this corridor, even if the road is not repaired, there would be no additional gains in grizzly bear core habitat. Vegetation would, over time, reestablish on a portion of the 2.5 mile segment of closed road: estimated eight of the former 14-foot wide roadbed. With the acre lost, there would be an estimated net gain of 0.9 acres of young, mixed coniferous/deciduous forest habitat, thought trees that colonize on the road surface may be stunted (due to the compacted growing site), if the abandoned road is not ripped (Ketcheson, pers. obser.).

107 Wild and Scenic River – Environmental Effects

If the No Action Alternative were implemented, any effects on scenery would be minimal to none. The damaged portion of the Mountain Loop is not visible to recreational boaters (use occurs downstream from this area). Eroded, non-vegetated portions of the former road bed plus remnants of the old road would remain, but exposed or bare ground is not uncommon along the gravel portion of the road. As noted above, roughly eight of the 14-feet of old roadbed would be, over time, vegetated by a young, mixed stand (though the trees may be stunted due to the compacted growing site).

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Wild and Scenic River If Alternative 2 were implemented, the proposed repairs at the three sites located within the Wild and Scenic River corridor would protect and enhance the free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values of the South Fork Sauk River. The proposed repairs are designed to avoid the repeated washouts (and resultant effects) that the Mountain Loop Byway has experienced in past flood events. With the river channel already eroded to bedrock along the east valley wall and the majority of the road above the active flood plain, there would be minimal opportunity for any further lateral channel migration to affect the road. By moving the road alignment away from the river and constructing repairs as far above the active channel (out of the river bed) as is practical, there would be minimal if any constriction of the floodplain. The proposed repairs result in less rip-rap than before the 2003 flood. The rip-rap required to protect the bridge abutments at milepost 33.6 would not impede channel migration or free-flow because the road work would be above the Ordinary High Water Mark34 (OHWM) and the rip-rap would be placed in locations where the river is already constrained by bedrock. The South Fork Sauk River would be able to freely occupy its active floodplain. The effects on water quality are expected to be of short duration and minimal compared to background sedimentation rates; see Effects, Aquatic Resources and Soils. The effects on fisheries would be short-term, related to short-term increases in noise and sediment during construction; see Effects, Fisheries, above. Regardless of which alternative is implemented, changes in wildlife habitat and wildlife populations would be slight due to the small amount of habitat change, and this change occurring in very small areas separated by relatively large distances. There are no significant effects to wildlife beyond a temporary increase in noise; see Effects, Wildlife. The roadway and views would be similar in character to the pre-flood condition and the scenery would not be altered significantly beyond the construction site. Any bare soils resulting from construction activities would be stabilized and revegetated to minimize erosion potential. At the expected effectiveness for these mitigation measures (80 percent—see discussion under Aquatic Resources and Soils), impacts to scenery would likely be short term. Exposed or bare ground is not uncommon along the gravel portion of the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway. The bridge is only 60-feet in length and would

34 The Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) is that line on the shore (or bank) established by the fluctuations of water, indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear natural line, impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas (33 CFR Part 328, Section 328.3 (Definitions)). 108 Wild and Scenic River – Environmental Effects

not be visible at a distance; it does not span the South Fork Sauk River, but would be built against the side slope.

Effects at Milepost 33.6 As described in Chapter 2, the proposed repair at this milepost would include moving as much of the damaged portion of the road as practical away from the river. A 60-foot, clear-span concrete bridge would be constructed adjacent to the cliff area (see Figure 9 through Figure 13, in Chapter 1). The bridge abutments would be tied into exposed bedrock. Concrete wing or retaining walls would be built at the each end of the bridge, to support the road to the bridge abutments and retain fill at the bridge approaches to prevent it from being washed out in future high-water events. Large rip-rap (roughly 4.5 to 5 feet in diameter, weighing from 8,000 to 14,000 pounds) would be used to protect the fill just upstream of the first retaining wall. The bridge would be located above the Ordinary High Water Mark, but the large rip-rap would be placed within the river’s bed and banks, below the OHWM. Thus, this proposed repair action meets the definition of a “water resources” project. The rip-rap would extend a maximum of 10 feet horizontally into the normal high water channel, for a maximum distance of 50 feet. This short section would be located between very large boulders (eight to 12 feet diameter) and exposed bedrock. Figure 26, below, is a repeat of Figure 10 (Chapter 1). While rip-rap would prevent bank erosion at this location, there would be little opportunity for channel migration here due to the very large boulders and bedrock.

Figure 26–Milepost 33.6, Rip-rap and Ordinary High Water Mark, Upper End of Proposed Repair

Bedrock Point

Approx. Extent of Riprap Start Retaining Wall

Ordinary High Water

Bedrock Boulder

109 Wild and Scenic River – Environmental Effects

The Section 7 determination for this proposed repair at MP 33.6 found that the proposed construction and road repair activities would not have a direct and adverse effect on the free-flowing condition, water quality, or the values for which the South Fork Sauk was designated as a Wild and Scenic River. The free-flowing characteristics of the river would be somewhat better at this site than those that existed after earlier flood repairs: more than half of the damaged road prism would be moved away from the river and the short rip-rapped section would be on bedrock. The river would still have full capacity to change course, reoccupy former side-channels, or inundate the flood plain. For further information, refer to Appendix D – Wild and Scenic River Act Section 7(a) Determination.

Effects at Milepost 34.8 The proposed repair of road damage at this milepost would involve realigning about 200 feet of the Mountain Loop about eight feet into the slope, on the uphill side of the road and away from the South Fork Sauk River. The over-steepened edge of the road would be pulled back and revegetated (see Mitigation Measures, Chapter 2). No rip-rap or other similar structures would be placed within the river’s bed or banks. The overall appearance would be similar to the road that was in place prior to the flood. For this site, the repairs would not have a direct and adverse effect on the free-flowing condition of the river, water quality, or the values for which the river was designated.

Effects at Milepost 35.6 At milepost 35.6, if Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) were implemented, the repair would include moving the road alignment approximately 20 feet into the slope, away from the river. For approximately 100 feet of this distance, the road would be built on large rip-rap that would be keyed into the exposed bedrock veins that extend out into the river. All project work would be above the river bed (above the ordinary high water mark). All exposed soils, including the new cut-slope into the steep hillside, would be seeded and mulched; see Mitigation Measures, Chapter 2. For this site, the repairs would not have a direct and adverse effect on the free-flowing condition of the river, water quality, or the values for which the river was designated.

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 3 – Wild and Scenic River The proposed repair at milepost 34.8 would be the same as in Alternative 2, and would have the same direct and indirect effects. At both mileposts 33.6 and 35.6, the proposed repair, if Alternative 3 were implemented, would include replacing the damaged road segments with long, multi-span concrete bridges that would be built over the entire damaged section (estimated 300 feet at MP 33.6 and 400 feet at MP 35.6). The new roadbed would be essentially in the same location as the old road, but the bridge superstructures would be elevated above the river channel, allowing any future high water events to flow under them. Unlike Alternative 2, no road realignment into the hillside or removal of minor amounts of vegetation at these two sites would be needed. See Chapter 2, Alternative 3 for a complete description. At both repair sites, a temporary dike of gravel bags (or other, clean material) would be built about 15- feet out from the streamside edge of the Mountain Loop, for the entire length of the washouts, to 110 Wild and Scenic River – Environmental Effects

separate the work area from the active channel of the river. A temporary access road would be built in the diked-in area, to handle the large machinery needed to construct the bridges. Both the temporary dike and the work road would be removed upon completion of the bridges; any effects would be short- term—for just the period of the construction, which is estimated at five months total (Hamilton, pers. comm. 2006)—and would not be considered an impact to the free-flowing condition of the South Fork Sauk River. If the MP 33.6 and 35.6 repair designs of Alternative 3 were implemented, the bridge abutments and support structures (large pillars) would be tied to bedrock. At each abutment and at approximately 100- foot intervals along the length of the washout, seven to eight foot diameter shafts would be drilled into the bedrock, to a depth of five to ten feet, to support the four to five-foot diameter circular piers. Caps would then be built on the piers and the superstructure girders and bridge decking would be placed (by large cranes, etc. working from the temporary road). This alternative would protect and enhance the free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values of the South Fork Sauk River. The construction at both sites would be done entirely above the river bed, above the OHWM. The proposed repairs at these damage sites would not meet the definition of a “water resources” project; therefore, a Section 7(a) Determination is not required. The effects to fish and wildlife would generally be the same as for Alternative 2 (and as disclosed in those resource discussions). The visual impact of the two long, multi-span bridges would be quite different in character compared to the pre-flood condition. However, there are other long bridges in the general area and in “viewing” the bridges from the Mountain Loop, they would become part of the driving experience of the road. The bridges at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6 would not been seen from the water, as recreational boating does not occur on this segment of the South Fork Sauk River.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Cumulative Effects The list of past, other current, and reasonably-foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of the proposed Mountain Loop Byway repair project was reviewed, in relationship to the Wild and Scenic Rivers. (See Appendix C for the tables listing all potential projects.) It has been determined that there are no cumulative effects from this project specific to Wild and Scenic Rivers, other than those cumulative effects addressed under other resources areas (aquatic resources and soils, fisheries, and wildlife). Wild and Scenic River values are protected and enhanced because the proposed action alternatives would improve conditions in the floodplain over the pre-flood conditions.

111 Wild and Scenic River – Environmental Effects

Wildlife – Affected Environment

Introduction – General Effects Impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat would be slight, regardless of alternative implemented. The greatest change to wildlife habitat is expected to be about one acre of habitat at locations that are separated by distances up to 2.5 miles. The largest individual impact would occur at the propose repair site at milepost 35.6, where up to 0.5 acres of vegetation would be removed. In addition to being small scattered areas of impact, the habitat removed—or that which would develop if no action were taken— is a young (up to 70 years of age) mixed conifer/deciduous forest. This is a common habitat both on and off National Forest System lands.

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitats The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has identified six wildlife species that may occur on the MBS that are listed as endangered or threatened (T&E) under the federal Endangered Species Act and two designated critical habitats. Four of these species and both critical habitats are expected to be found within the Mountain Loop Byway repair project area, including: northern spotted owl and its critical habitat, marbled murrelet and its critical habitat, bald eagle, and grizzly bear. The two T&E species that would not be expected to be found in the project area are Canada lynx and gray wolf. The nearest Canada lynx to the Mountain Loop project is found about 24 miles east of the project area: there are small fragments of potential lynx habitat in the upper Suiattle River. No potential habitat would be affected by the any of the Mountain Loop alternatives. A gray wolf rendezvous site was reported over ten miles east of the project area in 1996; however, other wolf reproduction has not been confirmed in the North Cascades. Potential wintering areas for deer—prey for the wolf—are located on the northeast side of the Sauk River, approximately 10 miles north of the Mountain Loop repair sites; however, prey densities in the project area are too low to support reproductive wolves. Transient wolves may occur on rare occasions. In addition to their federal T&E status, the bald eagle, grizzly bear, gray wolf, and northern spotted owl are Management Indicator Species for the MBS (USDA FS 1990). Other MIS species are discussed below.

Grizzly Bear The North Cascades area from Interstate 90 north to the Canadian border is designated by USFWS as a recovery zone for grizzly bear; there is a Recovery Plan (USFWS September 10, 1993). The North Cascades Grizzly Bear Management Committee, which consists of the Park Superintendent of the North Cascades National Park and the Forest Supervisors of the Wenatchee, Okanogan, and Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forests, agreed to an interim recovery standard of “no net loss” of existing core habitat until superseded by a Forest/Park Plan amendment or revision. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee defined core habitat as the area greater than 0.3 miles from open roads or from high-use trails (visitor use of 15 parties or more per week). In November 2003, the definition of a high-use trail was revised to 20 parties or more per week, the criterion used in other grizzly bear recovery areas. 112 Wild and Scenic River – Environmental Effects

The Mountain Loop Scenic Byway forms the boundary between Bear Management Unit (BMU) 7 (Monte Cristo), to the southeast, and BMU 8 (Boulder) to the northwest; see Figure E-1 in Appendix E, Selected Wildlife Maps. There are no confirmed sightings in either of the BMU’s.35 Probable grizzly bear sightings were made in 1986 near the Perry Creek Trailhead (3 miles west of the project area) and in 1985 and 1993 in the North Fork Sauk River, over 5 miles east of the project area. The most recent confirmed grizzly bear sighting on the Forest was in 1997 in the Suiattle BMU, approximately 12 miles east of the eastern-most repair site at milepost 35.6. Based on a lack of sightings in the Boulder BMU, occupancy is unlikely. However, it is possible that the Monte Cristo BMU is currently occupied by grizzly bear.

Northern Spotted Owl and Critical Habitat Suitable nesting/roosting, foraging and dispersal habitat exists along the length of the Mountain Loop Byway, including near the four repair sites. However, vegetation that could be affected if the proposed road repairs were implemented is not suitable habitat for spotted owl. The project area falls entirely within mapped Designated Critical Habitat areas for the spotted owl. The nearest historic owl activity center is within one-half mile south of the repair site at milepost 33.1. The range for this pair of owls extends from Barlow Pass to Monte Cristo Lake, just upstream of MP 33.1. This site was last surveyed in the late 1980’s; a barred owl was also observed using this area during the same time period and more recently. There is also an historic site (pair) near the Bedal Creek trailhead (about one mile east of MP 35.6) and an historic site (pair) near Goat Lake, more than 2.5 miles southeast of the project area. When both of these sites were last surveyed in the early 1990’s, barred owls were also detected. The Sustainable Ecosystem Institute (SEI) report (Courtney et al. 2004) identified three continuing threats to spotted owl (and murrelets): loss of nesting habitat (associated with timber harvest), catastrophic fire, and barred owls. The early nesting season for spotted owl occurs from March 1 to May 30. During this time, owls initiate nesting and incubate eggs. Adverse effects from noise disturbance during the early nesting season could result in owls failing to successfully nest. Disturbance after July 15 is not expected to have any potential to adversely affect spotted owl nesting because young birds will be capable of flight and can move out of an area where noise affects them.

Marbled Murrelet and Critical Habitat Suitable nesting habitat36 for this bird occurs adjacent to the project area, to the north and to the south, but not in the areas where habitat would be altered by implementation of any of the alternatives. Occupied behavior has not been documented in past survey efforts of the stands adjacent to the Mountain Loop repair sites. However, occupied behavior has been observed in stands to the south of the project area near Monte Cristo Lake (upstream of MP 33.1) and to the east along Forest Road 4096 (north of Bedal Creek). Murrelets have also been observed moving along the river corridor and over stands along Elliott Creek. Although no recent surveys have occurred, murrelet activity in the Sauk

35 In the North Cascades Recovery Zone, there have only three confirmed grizzly bear sightings since 1980. 36 Marbled murrelet habitat is primarily late-successional/old-growth forest with trees large and old enough to develop broad crowns and large limbs, which provide substrates for nests (FEMAT 1993). 113 Wild and Scenic River – Environmental Effects

River drainage was high during 1990 to 1994 surveys. The project area falls entirely within mapped Designated Critical Habitat areas for the marbled murrelet. The early nesting season, when eggs are incubated, lasts from April 1 to August 5. During this season, it is possible that adult birds could be flushed from nests due to a disturbance. During the period the adult is absent, it is possible that eggs could cool to the point that the embryo dies, or that predators could more easily detect nests, or have easier access to eggs, resulting in nest failure.

Bald Eagle Within a winter season (November through March), individual bald eagles use a large area that includes most of rivers in the Puget Sound region, the Fraser River system in British Columbia, coastal areas in western Washington and British Columbia, and portions of interior British Columbia and Washington State (Watson and Pierce 2001). In the absence of disturbance, wintering bald eagles frequently move between major rivers in western Washington. When disturbed, wintering eagles generally move only short distances (Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998). Levels of disturbance on the Sauk River are considerably lower than on the Skagit River, and on the Skagit River—despite high levels of disturbance to wintering eagles (Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998)—wintering bald eagle populations have increased (Dunwiddie and Kuntz 2001). The Sauk River is a small segment of the home range of some wintering eagles and the 2.5 mile segment of the Mountain Loop project area is a very small portion of a typical bald eagles winter range. Surveys of the lower Sauk River (the town Darrington, about 20 miles from the project area, down to the confluence with the Skagit River) indicate that 50 – 400 bald eagles are present on this portion of the river during the month of November. There is no historic indication that bald eagles have nested in the Mountain Loop project area. It is also unlikely that winter use occurs, due to poor availability of salmon carcasses. There does not appear to be any suitable habitat for bald eagles. Minimal eagle use of the South Fork Sauk River by wintering eagles may occur from October through the end of March. There are no known winter night roosts within or adjacent to the project area.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Eight animals on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list are documented or expected to occur on the MBS. Two of these species—Townsends’ big-eared bat and wolverine—may occur in the project area. There is no habitat for common Loon (which requires large lakes), peregrine falcon (cliff habitat with nearby abundant avian prey), great gray owl (large meadows), Oregon spotted frog (ponds or very low gradient streams), or Van Dyke’s or Larch Mountain salamander (its habitat range is south of U.S. Highway 2, over 20 miles south of the Mountain Loop). The two salamanders are also Survey and Manage species.

Townsend’s big-eared bats This species has been located in several areas on the Forest. Big-eared bats forage in both forested and non-forested environments, and are found in arid and moist regions. Rather than specific vegetation types, big-eared bats appear to be primarily influenced by the availability of roosts. Roosts for this

114 Wild and Scenic River – Environmental Effects

species are associated with caves, mines, and buildings. The Mountain Loop repair project area is suitable foraging habitat for Townsends’ big-eared bat., but no roosting habitat is known to occur within the project area.

Wolverine Wolverines are likely present on the Darrington Ranger District, but habitat for this animal is believed to be primarily in remote areas with little human activity. In most areas, wolverines are believed to be dependent on ungulates as a food source. Wolverines are not expected to occur in the project area due to high levels of human use (campgrounds, dispersed camping, hiking, and mountain biking) and very low prey availability.

Other Wildlife Species – Additional Management Indicator Species Woodpeckers are Management Indicator Species on the MBS. In the Mountain Loop road repair project area, nesting habitat for woodpeckers is of low quality because these young forests have few snags. The area is suitable foraging habitat. Higher quality habitat is found in older forests outside the influence zone of the proposed repair alternatives. Black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk are also Management Indicator Species. Elk are not currently known to occur in the Upper Sauk River drainage. Deer occur at very low densities in the project area. Occasional winter use occurs on the northeast side of the Sauk River, approximately 10 miles north of this section of river. Mountain goat is another Forest Management Indicator Species. No mountain goat habitat occurs at any of the proposed Mountain Loop repair sites, due to the relatively flat terrain of the valley floor. Mountain goat summer and winter habitat is located approximately 1,200 feet north of repair site at MP 33.1, on the opposite side of the river; see Figure E-2 in Appendix E, Selected Wildlife Maps. Mountain goat habitat is nearly one-quarter mile from the road, separated from the road by the South Fork Sauk River, and on cliff habitat. Goats have not been hunted in this area for more than a decade, and there is no indication that mountain goat adjust their behavior or habitat use to vehicle traffic or dispersed recreation activities at the distance involved, and considering other site factors. Pine Marten is a Management Indicator Species that is associated with older forests. Although found in all forested zones, higher densities of marten are found in the pacific silver fir and mountain hemlock forest zones. Marten may occur in and around the repair sites, but habitat quality is low due to the forest zone and the young age of much of the forest within a mile of the repair sites. Some land bird (song bird) species, including neo-tropical migratory birds, use mixed conifer/deciduous forests—typical of the immediate Mountain Loop project area—for nesting and foraging.

Survey and Manage Species See the discussion in Chapter 1, Relationship to the Forest Plan and also the discussion in Botany, above, for the most current status of Survey and Manage requirements.

115 Wildlife – Environmental Effects

The four Mountain Loop road repair sites are within the range of two terrestrial animal Survey and Mange species, both mollusks. It is not currently known if Hemphillia glandulosa meets the basic criteria as a Survey and Manage species. Management direction for this species includes managing known sites (of which there are none on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest) and strategic range-wide surveys. Pre-disturbance surveys are not required for this species if its habitat could be affected. Management direction for Cryptomastix devia requires pre-disturbance surveys if suitable habitat would be modified. Suitable habitat for this species occurs below 1,500 feet elevation. Because the repair sites are located above 1,500 feet elevation and no potential habitat for this species occurs at the road repair sites, no surveys were conducted (or need to be fully consistent with the requirements of the 2001 ROD (USDA FS, USDI BLM 2001). As noted above, the habitat range for Van Dyke’s and Larch Mountain salamanders—both Sensitive and Survey and Manage Species—is south of U.S. Route 2, south of the project area.

Wildlife – Environmental Effects Regardless of which alternative is implemented, changes in wildlife habitat and wildlife populations would be slight due to the small amount of habitat change, and this change occurring in very small areas separated by relatively large distances.

ESA Consultation Consultation with USFWS on the effects of the proposed Mountain Loop road repairs on threatened and endangered wildlife species occurred under the 5-Year Programmatic Biological Assessment for Forest Management: Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (June 2002). A Biological Opinion (BO) on this consultation [for the Programmatic] was issued by USFWS in September 2002. The USFWS granted incidental take of spotted owl and marbled murrelet due to harassment from noise- generating projects, consistent with this Biological Opinion. The Level 1 Team (which consists of USFWS, NMFS (for Chinook salmon, only), and Forest Service biologists) reviewed consistency of the Mountain Loop project with the programmatic assessment and Opinion, and signed-off on the Project Consistency Evaluation Form in January 2005, thus meeting consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act. In March 2006, the Level 1 Team met again regarding removal of some additional trees under Alternative 2, repair at milepost 35.6. The Project Consistency Evaluation Form was resigned, completing consultation (see project files). The effects determination for northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet is: Likely to Adversely Affect, for noise disturbance. [Note: no additional consultation is required, as the Programmatic BO granted incidental take due to noise.] The effects determination for owl Critical Habitat is: No Effect; for marbled murrelet Critical Habitat is: Not Likely to Adversely Affect. The effects determination for bald eagle is: Not Likely to Adversely Affect.

116 Wildlife – Environmental Effects

The effects determination for grizzly bear, gray wolf, and lynx is: No Effect.

Environmental Effects Common to All Alternatives – Wildlife Implementing any of the three alternatives would have no effect or impact on Canada Lynx, mountain goat, common loon, peregrine falcon, great gray owl, Oregon spotted frog, Van Dyke’s or Larch Mountain salamander, or the Survey and Manage mollusk Cryptomastix devia because the area does not support habitat for these species, or the habitat that is present near the Mountain Loop project area would not be affected, directly or indirectly, by implementation of any of the alternatives. There are no records of wildlife/vehicle collisions on the Mountain Loop Highway, so none of the alternatives would be expected to result in a change in mortality or survival rates of any wildlife species. The maximum posted speed on paved portions of the Byway is 45 mile per hour; given the numerous curves and condition of the unpaved portion, speeds are generally lower there. The relatively low speed, coupled with relatively low-quality wildlife habitat, would result in few to no wildlife/vehicle collisions.

Deer (and Elk) Up to one acre of habitat for deer (and elk) would be impacted under implementation of any of the three alternatives. Because these impacts would occur at four sites scattered along a 2.5 long mile river corridor, impacts at any one site would be slight and would not be measurable at the scale of an animal’s home range. As noted above, there are no records of ungulate/vehicle collisions on the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway, so none of the alternatives would be expected to result in a change in mortality or survival rates. The impacts of all three alternatives would be too small to result in a change in habitat suitability for either deer or elk; therefore, implementing Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would have no impact on these species.

Pine Marten Pine marten habitat suitability is low in the project area; higher densities of this species are found in higher elevations of the pacific sliver fir and mountain hemlock forest zones. Furthermore, in the areas affected by the Mountain Loop repair alternatives, habitat quality is low quality because the forest is young aged, early seral. The change in habitat that would occur under implementation of any of the alternatives would be very small compared to the home range of an individual marten—and the change would occur in low quality habitat. As a result of low habitat quality and very small changes to that habitat, there would be no impact to marten habitat suitability under implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, or 3.

Land Birds Up to one acre of land bird habitat would be impacted by the any of alternatives. Impacts would occur at four sites, with the largest site impact being 0.5 acre of vegetation removal. Because of the small area impacted at each site, impacts would be expected to be on a within-territory scale, resulting in changes to habitat suitability, not removal of individual territories. However, impacts are so small that they would not be expected to impact population levels for any land bird species. 117 Wildlife – Environmental Effects

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Townsend’s big-eared bats forage in both forested and non-forested areas. The removal of up to one acres of forest would modify, but not eliminate, foraging habitat for this species if it is present in the area. Because bats are active at night, there would be no potential for disturbance due to project activities, which would occur during the day. All alternatives may impact individual big-eared bats and their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Late Successional Reserve One proposed repair site at milepost 33.1 is located in Late Successional Reserve (LSR) 116; the area is also allocated to Riparian Reserve (see Chapter 1, Land Allocations). This is a large (110,000 acre) LSR whose value is augmented by late success ional and old-growth forest in the adjoining Boulder River, Henry M. Jackson, and Glacier Peak Wilderness Areas. Most of the LSR is old-growth habitat (62 percent) and another five percent is late successional forest that has not yet developed old-growth forest characteristics. Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in the loss of no more than 1 acre of mid- successional forest (mixed conifer/deciduous up to 70 years in age) and would have no affect on late successional forest. If no action (Alternative 1) were implemented, up to two acres of early- successional forest could be expected to develop, over time. Because no late successional forest would be affected, and the development of early-successional forest would not help meet LSR objectives, implementation of any of the alternatives would be neutral to the functioning of this LSR.

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action) – Wildlife

Overall Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action) If no repairs are completed at the four damage sites, the expected effects of the No Action Alternative 1 would include up to one acre of additional loss of young, mixed conifer/deciduous forest due to continued river migration at, and around, the road failure sites. If the abandoned road were not ripped, trees that would colonize the road surface may be stunted, due to the compacted growing site (Ketcheson pers. observ.). Predictions of recreation use anticipate that the 2.5 mile segment of road that would remain closed to vehicles would become a high-use trail, averaging 20 or more groups of people per week. With high use levels, it is anticipated that vegetation would establish on no more than eight feet of the former 14- foot wide roadbed (where it was not washed out in the 2003 flood event). Over the 2.5 mile road segment, a maximum of 1.9 acres of young, mixed coniferous/deciduous forest habitat may develop. Considering the one acre of this vegetation would be expected to be lost due to river migration, implementation of Alternative 1 would result in an increase of approximately 0.9 acres of this habitat.

Effects on Grizzly Bear and Gray Wolf – Alternative 1 (No Action) If no action were taken, there would be no expected effects on the grizzly bear or on gray wolf. While motorized access would be eliminated along 2.5 miles of the Mountain Loop National Scenic Byway, recreational use of this road segment is expected to remain high during both early (March 15 118 Wildlife – Environmental Effects

through June 30) and late (July 1 through October 31) grizzly bear seasons. Therefore, there would be no change in core habitat for the grizzly bear. Since human use of this area under would remain high if this alternative is implemented, there would also be no effect expected for the gray wolf. Young, mixed conifer/deciduous forest is low-quality, non-core habitat for grizzly bear and low-quality habitat for gray wolf. In the case of the wolf, it is low- quality habitat for its prey, as well. The small loss of low-quality habitat is not expected to have measurable effect on habitat quality for grizzly bear or gray wolf.

Effects on Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet and Their Critical Habitats – Alternative 1 Noise disturbance from construction activities would not occur, if the No Action Alternative were implemented; therefore, there would be no effect to either the spotted owl or marbled murrelet under this alternative. In the short term, there would be no effect on critical habitat for either the owl or murrelet, but there may be up to one acre of critical habitat that would be lost to river meander over the long term. Because the acre that would be lost is not nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersal habitat for northern spotted owl, there would be no effect to constituent elements of its critical habitat. Because the acre of lost habitat does not have suitable nest trees or trees at least one-half the site potential tree height, the lost habitat is—by definition—not critical habitat for marbled murrelet. Therefore, there would be no effect to marbled murrelet critical habitat if Alternative 1 (No Action) were implemented.

Effects on Bald Eagles – Alternative 1 As discussed under Water Resources and Soils, above, sediment from continued erosion at the four damage sites would enter the river system—either all at once in a major high-water event, or ever a decade or more, in a series of smaller floods. This material (suspended sediment, sand and gravel, and cobbles/boulders) may have impacts to fish populations, but these impacts are not expected to be of great enough magnitude to affect prey availability for bald eagles. As a result, implementation of Alternative 1 (No Action) would have no effect on bald eagles.

Effects on Woodpeckers – Alternative 1 An estimated one acre of woodpecker (primary excavator) habitat would be impacted (or lost) due to continued bank erosion at the four road damage sites. Small acreage at several locations would be lost, with losses at each site estimated be much less than one acre. For woodpeckers, the habitat that would be lost is low-quality nesting habitat, due to the low number and small size of snags found in young forest. The loss of this small amount of low-quality habitat would not be expected to result in a decrease in the number of woodpecker territories, but could result in adjustment of territory location. In the long-term (beyond 10 years, up to 300 years), greater woodpecker habitat quality would develop if the no action alternative were implemented because snags used for nesting and feeding would develop along the road corridor. This would result in increased woodpecker populations.

119 Wildlife – Environmental Effects

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action) or 3 – Wildlife

Overall Effects of Implementing Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Implementation of Alternative 2 would be expected to result in the loss of up to a total of 0.95 acres of mixed coniferous/deciduous forest habitat as a result of road relocations (moving the road into the hillside at all four damage sites). Habitat lost at each site would range from 0.1 to 0.5 acres.

Overall Effects of Implementing Alternative 3 If Alternative 3 were implemented, a maximum of about 0.4 acres of mixed coniferous/deciduous forest habitat would be lost as a result of road relocation. At each of mileposts 33.1 and 34.8, roughly 0.1 acre of vegetation is expected to be removed, in the process of realigning the Mountain Loop into the hillside. No new cut-slopes are proposed at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6, as long multi-span bridges would span over all of the damaged portions of the road. However on the conservative side, an estimated loss of 0.1 acre of vegetation was calculated for these repair sites, as well.

Effects on Grizzly Bear and Gray Wolf – Alternatives 2 and 3 The small loss of low-quality habitat that would result from implementing either action alternative would be expected to have no measurable on habitat suitability for these species, due to the expected high recreation use and because both grizzly bear and gray wolf have home ranges that average nearly 100 square miles in size. Although this segment of the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway has been closed to motorized through- traffic since late 2003, the project area remains non-core habitat because of the high recreational use this area receives. Although implementation of either Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) or Alternatives 3 would result in reopening the road to motor vehicles, grizzly bear movement between the Boulder and Monte Cristo Bear Management Units would be expected to be able to occur. The threshold for roads becoming barriers to grizzly bear movement is believed to be 2,400 vehicles per day or about 100 vehicles per hour (Waller and Servheen 2005). The maximum expected motor vehicle use of the Mountain Loop would be 600 up to 800 vehicles per day—see Recreation, Traffic Use, page 137— would be considerably less than this threshold. In addition, mixed conifer/deciduous habitat is not an important feeding habitat for grizzly bear. The project area would also be unlikely to be used by wolves, except perhaps as dispersal habitat, due to the high recreational use and the inadequate prey base (e.g. limited numbers of ungulates). Therefore, the gray wolf would also not be expected to be present within the project area, and implementing the activities proposed in either Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) or Alternative 3 would have no effect on the gray wolf.

Effects on Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet and Their Critical Habitats – Alternatives 2 and 3 The young, mixed conifer/deciduous vegetation that would be removed with Alternatives 2 or 3 is not suitable habitat for either the spotted owl or murrelet. As a result, implementation of either action alternative would not affect habitat for these species.

120 Wildlife – Environmental Effects

Noise-generating work activities could start as early as May 1, in the calendar year—which is the early nesting season for both spotted owls and murrelets. If either Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) or 3 were implemented, a total of up to 32 acres of suitable nesting habitat for both the spotted owl and murrelet could be adversely affected by project-related noise. Because project activities are expected to occur during the early nesting season for both species, it is possible that noise created by project activities could result in potential adverse effects through nest abandonment or increased predation. The duration for this effect would be the period of project construction (summer of 2006 to fall, perhaps some work in 2007). To mitigate this potential impact, measures included in the design of both Alternatives 2 and 3 would employ a two-hour timing restriction (work restricted to between two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset) to reduce the possibilities that adverse affects from noise disturbance would occur for murrelets in the later stages of nesting. During the later nesting season, adults visit nests only to feed chicks; they spend the remainder of the day out on salt water. Because 90 percent of feedings occur within two hours of sunrise and sunset, implementation of the mitigation measure would result in a 90- percent reduction in possible adverse effects that could result from interrupted chick feeding. However, because adults are present on nests all day during the incubation period, the restricted work hours would not reduce the potential for adverse effects due to project noise when adults are incubating eggs during the early nesting season. As noted above, the Sustainable Ecosystems Institute (SEI) Report (Courtney et al. 2004) identified three major threats to the spotted owl and murrelet: timber harvest, catastrophic wildfire, and barred owls. Repairing and maintaining the Mountain Loop would not be expected to contribute to catastrophic wildfire or an increase in invasion of the barred owl, which is already known to be present within the project area. The Mountain Loop National Forest Scenic Byway is a high-use road, and like any open road, there is the risk for carelessness by users. However, in the event of a fire, the road would also facilitate suppression efforts. Repairing and maintaining this road would not add to residual effects from past actions to this species. The project area at milepost 33.1 is located in part in Late Successional Reserve (overlain by Riparian Reserve); the other repairs sites fall within the Wild and Scenic River corridor and the entire project area is within mapped Designated Critical Habitat for both the spotted owl and marbled murrelet. Because the area affected by the proposed repairs in either Alternatives 2 or 3 is not suitable habitat for spotted owls, none of the alternatives would affect primary constituent elements of critical habitat for northern spotted owls. The project area (both Alternatives 2 and 3) is not suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelet; however, the proposed repairs are located within one-half mile of suitable nesting murrelet habitat. If Alternative 2 were implemented, the proposed repair at milepost 35.6 would include removal of seven legacy trees (to create the large cut slope needed to realign the road away from the river). These trees are at least one-half the site potential for tree height, so while the area lacks suitable nesting habitat for murrelets, the affected area at this site is by definition, critical habitat. The importance of tree height on nearby nesting habitat is due to the potential for these trees to modify microclimate in potential nest habitat, or reduce wind throw in potential nesting habitat. The removal of seven large 121 Wildlife – Environmental Effects

trees at MP 35.6 would not affect microclimate or wind throw probability in potential nesting habitat located one-quarter mile away. As a result, Alternative 2 may affect, but would not adversely affect critical habitat for marbled murrelet. Implementation of Alternative 3 would have no effect marbled murrelet critical habitat. None of the proposed repairs in this alternative would impact trees equal to one-half of the site potential for tree height, thus by definition, no critical habitat would be impacted. [At MP 35.6, a long concrete bridge would be built, spanning the damaged road; no cut slope would be needed and the legacy trees would not be removed.]

Effects on Bald Eagles – Alternatives 2 and 3 As disclosed in the Effects on Aquatic Resources and Soils, above, minor amounts of sediment (suspended sediment, sands and gravel, and a small percent of cobbles and boulders) have the potential to enter the South Fork Sauk River if Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action) or 3 were implemented. There would be the potential for slightly-less amounts of sediment with Alternative 3, due to the long, multi- span bridges that would be constructed over the damaged road sections at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6. The amount of sediment would be minor, on the magnitude of less than four pickup truck loads of material, annually, for the first two years after repair work is completed (then diminishing to insignificant amounts thereafter). The expected impacts to fish and fish habitat would be minor and short-term (less than one year); see Fisheries Effects, above. These impacts would not be expected to be of great enough magnitude to affect prey availability for bald eagles. Road repair activities may occur in early November when it is remotely possible that bald eagles may be present. If eagles were present, the Mountain Loop repair activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 could result in a few eagles being displaced from low-quality habitat, for a small period (10-percent) of the winter season. The project area (2.5 miles of the Mountain Loop) equals about three percent of the potential wintering habitat in the Sauk River. This effect would be short-term, the duration of the construction. As a result of this potential disturbance from project activities, implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3 may affect, but would not adversely affect bald eagle due to potential displacement from low- quality winter habitat. As noted above, when disturbed, wintering eagles generally move only short distances (Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998). Levels of disturbance are much lower on the Sauk River than on the Skagit River, where despite high levels of disturbance on the Skagit, winter eagle populations have increased (Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998; Dunwiddie and Kuntz 2001).

Effects on Woodpeckers – Alternatives 2 and 3 Woodpecker (primary excavator) habitat would be impacted if Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action) or 3 were implemented, due to a small amount of proposed forest clearing for road relocation. Habitat removal would be expected to be a maximum of 0.95 acres (Alternative 2) to a conservative estimate for Alternative 3 of 0.4 acres (0.1 acres of vegetation removal at mileposts 33.1 and 34.8, with an additional 0.1 acre factored in, conservatively, for the road repair work at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6). The largest impact that would occur at any one repair site if the removal of about 0.5 acres of vegetation at site MP 35.6, as proposed in Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). Because the impacted sites

122 Wildlife – Environmental Effects

are adjacent to an existing highway, where snags are routinely felled as hazard trees, habitat quality for primary excavators in the area is low and would be expected to remain low into the future. Each repair site impacted is much smaller than the home range of an individual bird. Therefore, while the effects of implementing either Alternatives 2 or 3 could result in lower habitat quality for individual birds, the removal of this small acreage of forest habitat would not be expected to reduce the number of available territories. Because impacted sites are currently low quality habitat, impacts to individual birds is expected to be slight, such as adjusting territory location. In the long-term (beyond 10 years), repairing and reopening to traffic the Mountain Loop (as proposed in either action alternative) would result in lower woodpecker populations than would the No Action Alternative 1, due to the need to fall snags to maintain a safe roadway.

Wildlife Cumulative Effects Due to a lack of measurable direct or indirect effects from the Mountain Loop proposed road repair, there would be no cumulative effects for: grizzly bear, gray wolf, Canada lynx, common loon, peregrine falcon, great gray owl, Oregon spotted frog, Van Dyke’s or Larch Mountain salamander, wolverine, black-tailed deer, mountain goat, pine marten, or land birds. Refer to Appendix C, for the list of past, other current, and reasonably-foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of Mountain Loop that were assessed for cumulative effects for wildlife. Page 123includes a summary for cumulative effects on wildlife.

Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, their Critical Habitat – Cumulative Effects All alternatives could modify up to one acre of vegetation that currently does not provide habitat for either species. Although in the long-term, these vegetation types could develop into old-growth forest capable of supporting nesting activities of both species, the Mountain Loop project area is too small to be meaningful. The average spotted owl home range in the project area is estimated to be 4,270 acres. Therefore, the area impacted is, at most, 0.023 percent of the average home range. The sizes of the areas where vegetation would be removed are smaller than the natural gaps that commonly occur within old-growth forests that provide nesting habitat for both species. Because no suitable spotted owl and marbled murrelet habitat would be affected, none of the alternatives would, cumulatively, add to past reductions in habitat area that led to the listing of the two species.

Past Timber Harvest and the Late Successional Reserve Over the past 100 years, timber harvest and associated road construction have reduced nesting habitat for northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. Late Successional Reserve (LSR) 116 and its associated Designated Conservation Areas, which includes sites MP 33.1 and most of the Sauk River Forks watershed, has 58 percent of the forested area in the western hemlock and pacific silver fir forest zones (USDA 2001), which are potentially suitable habitat for spotted owls and marbled murrelets. Although the other three Mountain Loop Byway repair sites are located within the Wild and Scenic River corridor, the representation of successional stages in this area is similar to the LSR (and most timber harvest at this elevation occurred prior to the designation of Wild and Scenic or the 1994 allocation of LSR). 123 Wildlife – Environmental Effects

In the potentially suitable habitat of this LSR, 66 percent (71,511 acres) of the area is nesting habitat for northern spotted owls and murrelets (old-growth forest). An additional seven percent of these forest zones currently provide foraging (but not nesting) habitat for northern spotted owls. Forests younger than 80 years-old comprise 25 percent (27,116 acres) of the potentially suitable spotted owl and marbled murrelet habitat. Most of these young stands were likely suitable nesting habitat that has been harvested. This LSR is currently estimated to provide habitat capable of supporting 19 pairs of northern spotted owls, and has the potential to support more than 26 pairs when habitat conditions recover. Habitat recovery has been occurring for the last 15 years, during which time, no spotted owl or marbled murrelet nesting habitat has been harvested. The removal of less than one acre of vegetation of that currently does not provide habitat for either species would not cumulatively change this trend.

Road Decommissioning in Project Area Since 1990, at least 11 miles of road have been decommissioned in the critical habitat units for spotted owl and marbled murrelet. With an average road width of 14 feet, the decommissioning of these roads has increased the area of suitable habitat that can eventually provide nesting habitat by 18.6 acres. Although implementation of Mountain Loop Alternatives 2 or 3 could reduce this amount by a maximum of one acre, the trend since designation of critical habitat has been an increase in potentially suitable habitat. Furthermore, habitat quality in other potentially suitable nesting habitat has been increasing, as previously harvested stands have aged. For both spotted owl and marble murrelet critical habitat units, the cumulative effects of recent activities have resulted in a net increase in habitat quality and in the amount of area potentially suitable for future nesting habitat. The loss of up to one acre of potential future nesting habitat will not reverse this recent trend of improved condition of the critical habitat units.

Bald Eagles – Cumulative Effects For cumulative effects, the area of potential effect for this species for a winter season is quite large: for an individual bald eagle, it includes most of rivers in the Puget Sound region, the Fraser River system in British Columbia, coastal areas in western Washington and British Columbia, and portions of interior British Columbia and Washington State (Watson and Pierce 2001). Bald eagles are not known to winter in this part of the South Fork Sauk River, but due to the presence of small numbers of spawning salmon, may occur in low numbers at some time during the winter. Because the proposed road repair activities occur in early November—when it is remotely possible that bald eagles may be present—there would be possible cumulative effects from the Mountain Loop repair activities with other disturbances (such as boating, hiking, fishing, and residential activities along the Sauk River) for a short period, the first two weeks of November during the year of project construction (and none, thereafter). The effect would be limited to a possible reduction of habitat use during the first two weeks of the winter eagle season (November 1 to 15). If eagles were present, the habitat they could be displaced from is low-quality habitat. Total feeding time may be reduced but there is no indication that reduced feeding time affects eagle survival or reproduction (Watson and Pierce 2001).

124 Wildlife – Environmental Effects

Important to note: in the absence of disturbance, wintering bald eagles frequently move between major rivers in western Washington. When they are disturbed, wintering eagles generally move only short distances (Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998). Regarding the level of disturbance that might occur (with the Mountain Loop proposed repairs plus other winter activities): it is known that the levels of disturbance on the Sauk River are considerably lower than on the Skagit River. On the Skagit, despite high levels of disturbance to wintering eagles on the Skagit River,37 wintering bald eagle populations on the Skagit River have increased (Dunwiddie and Kuntz 2001). Because potential disturbance that could result from Alternatives 2 and 3 would affect few eagles a nd would occur in low-quality habitat, on a small portion of the Sauk River, over a short portion of the winter season, combined with lower levels of disturbance that experienced on the Skagit River [where there has been no noticeable impact to wintering bald eagle populations), no cumulative effects that would affect wintering populations of bald eagles would be expected.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bar – Cumulative Effects There would be no cumulative effects for Townsend’s Big-eared bat. Timber harvest on over 23,000 acres of National Forest System Land since 1922 has modified foraging habitat for Townsend’s big- eared bat. But, since this species appears to be primarily influenced by the availability of roosts—and roosts for this bat are limited to caves, mines, and buildings—past timber harvest has not affected the availability of roost sites. It is estimated that future thinning sales in the Sauk River drainage would not impact roost sites, either. Implementing the Mountain Loop Byway repairs would modify up to one acre of foraging habitat, but would have no impact on roost sites. The addition of up to one acre of change in foraging habitat would add to the cumulative changes in big-eared bat foraging habitat, but would not affect the distribution or populations of this species, because these factors are controlled by the availability of roost sites.

Woodpeckers (Snags) – Cumulative Effects Past timber harvest on over 23,000 acres of NFS land within the Sauk and Sauk River Forks Watershed since 1922 has reduced habitat quality for woodpeckers and species that use snags and down wood. Populations of these species have likely decreased where harvest activities have occurred. The habitat value of lands harvested more than 30-years ago is increasing for woodpeckers, but likely will not reach maximum potential until old-growth forest conditions develop. The effects of these past actions, cumulatively with the loss of a total of up to one acre of foraging and potential future nesting habitat if the Mountain Loop repairs are implemented, would not be expected to reduce the number of available territories. Therefore, none of the Mountain Loop action alternatives are expected to add, cumulatively, to the effects of the past timber harvest. Furthermore, current land management allocations are expected to have a 100 percent probability of maintaining well-distributed, viable populations of all woodpeckers and secondary cavity nesting birds (USDA, USDI 1993, pg. IV 166 and 167).

37 Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998. 125 Wildlife – Environmental Effects

Table 9–Wildlife Cumulative Effects Determination Project Species and Overlap in Measurable Extent, Detectable? Potential Effects Time Space Cumulative Effect?

Past Timber Spotted owls and Alts. 2 and 3, if Harvest on NFS murrelets: loss of implemented, would result in land, Sauk River about 25% of the loss of up to 1 acre of future Forks watershed suitable nesting potential nesting habitat in (1922-2000) habitat in the LSR critical habitat. However, for 150-350 years. trend has been an Road decom- increase in potential missioning since However, trend is Yes Yes Yes nesting habitat and none 1990. towards increasing of the Mtn. Loop alts. habitat conditions for would reduce that trend. both owl and Considered with road murrelet. decommissioning, recent actions result in improved conditionof critical habitat for both owl and murrelet. “Disturbance” Bald eagle: feeding Extent of disturbance Yes, for activities: boating, habitat quality. unknown, but it is two hiking, fishing, and considerably less than on weeks residential activities Yes – possible the Skagit R. A small in Nov. along Sauk River Yes short-term number of birds may move the year and tributaries effect away from feeding sources of during the winter. (in low-quality habitat) and project feed elsewhere, on small work. portion of the Sauk River. Past Timber Townsend’s Big- The loss of one additional Harvest on NFS earred Bat: feeding acre of foraging habitat land, Sauk River habitat: harvest on would not effect Forks watershed over 23,000 acres or distribution or (1922-2000) 8% of watershed. populations, because these factors are controlled by Past harvest availability of roost sites, modified feeding No Yes No which are not known to have habitat,but it been affected by past remains suit-able. actions—nor would roost No known sites be affected by the Mtn. differences be- Loop repairs. tween forested and non-forested feeding habitat quality. Past Timber Woodpeckers Alt. 2 or 3 would result in Harvest on NFS (snags): effects of loss of up to one acre low- land, Sauk River harvest of over quality habitat; this Forks watershed 23,000 ac or 8% of additional loss in this (1922-2000) watershed greatly watershed would not be reduced habitat for significant, since 90% No Yes No 50 years on moderate to high-quality harvested acres. habitat remains in the watershed. Viability analyses indicated 100% likelihood of all woodpecker species remaining viable.

126 Botany–Affected Environment

Botany–Affected Environment The sites damaged by the October 2003 flood along the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway are located adjacent to the South Fork Sauk River in a narrow strip of riparian forest that dates from the 1930s. Outside of this area are old growth stands. At the project sites, the forest is mixed conifer and hardwoods, typically red alder, big leaf maple, western red cedar, and western hemlock. As noted in the Alternative description, most trees are small (eight to 10 inches in diameter), with a few larger trees. The under-story vegetation at these sites is dominated by sword fern, salmonberry, and piggyback plant with many other plant species, depending on the site. Most of the proposed road re-alignment would involve moving the Mountain Loop into and a little beyond the existing cut banks. Therefore, the majority of vegetation that would be impacted is growing on previously-disturbed sites. As noted in Chapter 1, Relationship to the Forest Plan, a January 9, 2006 U.S. District Court order reinstated the January 2001 Record of Decision that amended the standards and guidelines for Survey and Manage species (including protection buffer species and other mitigation measures). The Court order included any amendments or modifications to the 2001 ROD that were in effect as of March 21, 2004. The latest modification was the December 2003, Table 1-1 species list update from the Interagency Annual Species Review. Due to the presence of suitable habitat at the repair sites, botanical surveys of the proposed road realignments were completed on August 4, 2004. These were Level 5 surveys (intuitive controlled), using the July 2004, Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list, as the surveys were done subsequent to the March 2004 decision [now vacated] to remove survey and manage mitigation measures. On the MBS, internal botany program procedures direct agency botanists, to the extent possible, to document all species (vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, and fungi) during pre-disturbance surveys, regardless of which plants are listed on agency species lists at the time of the survey. For this reason, no additional surveys were needed, following reinstatement of the 2001 ROD: the pre-disturbance surveys done in July 2004 are considered complete, consistent with direction in the reinstated 2001 ROD.

Results of Surveys No Sensitive or Survey and Manage plant species were found at any of the repair sites. Complete species lists from each survey can be found in the Botany files at the Darrington Ranger Station. The Bureau of Land Management’s Geographical Biotic Observations database (January 2006) shows three sites of the Survey and Manage plant Platanthera obiculata near all four proposed repair sites. However, all plants sites are more than 500 feet away from the Mountain Loop project sites and well outside the area of disturbance. The database also shows the Survey and Manage lichen Hypogymnia duplicata and 21 species of Survey and Manage fungi near Barlow Pass, upstream of the repair site at milepost 33.1. All plant sites are at least 1.25 miles south of the nearest proposed repair site and outside any area of disturbance. No noxious weeds were found during the surveys.

127 Botany–Environmental Effects

Botany–Environmental Effects If No Action, Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), or Alternative 3 were implemented, there would be no effect to Sensitive or Survey and Manage species because none are present in the project area. There are no known sites requiring management. There would be a slightly higher likelihood of noxious weed introduction if either of the action alternatives were implemented (Alternatives 2 or 3), due to soil disturbance and machinery working in the project area. However, the management practices and requirements listed in Chapter 2 are designed to minimize the risk. (Refer to Chapter 2, Mitigation Measures, Management Practices and Requirements.) The MNB has been implementing the Prevention Strategies and Best Management Practices (USDA FS 1990, Plan Amendment #14) since the strategy and BMPs were included in the Forest Plan standards and guidelines in 1999. The prescribed measures have been found to be effective and have become standards practices on this Forest. See Aquatic Resources and Soils, for additional discussion.

Botany Cumulative Effects

Sensitive and Survey and Manage Species Because no Sensitive or Survey and Manage botanical species were found in the project area during plant surveys, there are no direct or indirect effects from implementing the alternatives; there would also be no cumulative effect.

Invasive Species In considerin g cumulative effects on noxious weeds, the potential area of effect analyzed included the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway, from Darrington to Granite Falls. The road was selected as roads (and motorized traffic) are effective vectors for transporting and spreading weed seed (Lonsdale and Lane 1994, Sheley and Petroff 1999, Tyser and Worley 1992). Although there are currently no noxious weeds in the 2.5 mile stretch of the Mountain Loop project area, there are other segments of the Mountain Loop Highway have infestations: ƒ Orange hawkweed (Hieraceum aurantiacum) is present along the highway south of Darrington and again near Silverton. ƒ Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) is present in spots between Darrington and the Forest boundary. ƒ Knotweed (Polygonum ssp) is present in patches south of Darrington, in patches west of Verlot, and in small isolated patches along Wiley Creek, along the Byway just east of Verlot, and within the middle reach of the Sauk River. One patch at the “Sinkhole” (located east of Verlot) has been treated with an herbicide for several years and appears to be dead. The other knot weed patches have been treated by Snohomish County Noxious Weed Control for the past 2 to 3 years and are in a steady decline. The County has also treated the hawkweed for several years but control of the hawkweed has been spotty. The Nature Conservancy has been treating the knotweed patches within the Sauk River as part of the overall effort to control knotweed in the upper Skagit system. Most of the patches within the Middle Sauk River have been eradicated. 128 Heritage Resources–Affected Environment

Implementation of either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 would not be expected to contribute to weed spread over and beyond what would be expected with typical traffic because: ƒ Weed control efforts along the Mountain Loop are on-going (some infestations have been eradicated). Effects are limited and specific to the treatment site; and ƒ Implementation of either action alternative would include the prescribed Botany Mitigation Measures, Management Practices and Requirements (see Chapter 2): establishing competitive, desirable plants along the roadside would help prevent establishment of new weed infestations (Sheley and Petroff 1999; Losensky 1989); weed free mulch and fill materials would be used; and construction equipment would be weed-free prior to entering Federal lands.

In response to comments received during the 30-day comment period: One person commenting on the Preliminary EA felt there was not enough meaningful history presented in the document. While the intent of an EA is to avoid “…long descriptions or detailed data which the agency may have gathered…” (CEQ 40 Most-Asked Questions), this section of the analysis has been enhanced. Also, the references for Heritage Resources have been expanded to better reflect the analysis undertaken by agency specialists, and to provide the reader with additional resources.

Heritage Resources–Affected Environment

Cultural Setting The earliest evidence of occupation of western Washington is from a small number of sites that date to the period immediately after the glacial retreat (Carlson 1990, Metzler and Dunnell 1987). Climatic extremes limited both extent and routes of travel. Sites that date to before 5,000 B.P. (Before Present) are generally interpreted as evidence of a highly mobile hunting and gathering population that focused on hunting large land mammals. Large flake and cobble tools and leaf-shaped, stemmed projectiles points are characteristic of this period. Occupation of the upland areas increased about 4,000 years ago, and continued into the time of European contact. This period is associated with the establishment of large multi-family villages in the lowlands and a dependence on stored foods in the winter. Groups dispersed to the upland and mountain areas during the warmer months to take advantage of plant, animal and geologic resources. Sites from 2,000- 3,000 years B.P. suggest frequent and varied use of the mountains. These sites also show continuity in distribution and site contents from the eastern flanks of the Cascades to the western slopes, suggesting close inter-group connections via trade, travel, and kinship (Hollenbeck and Carter 1986:44). The Mountain Loop Scenic Byway analysis area is within the ancestral territory of the Sauk people, the present-day Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. Permanent villages and camps of the Sauk are documented along the lower Sauk River and at Sauk Prairie, which became known as the main village of the Sauk River people (Hollenbeck, 1987). Upstream from Darrington, near the White Chuck River ”there existed dwellings, probably year round. There were old Indian reports that some of the Sauk people chose to live upriver from Darrington on a year-round basis. This location was unique for its Beaver Ponds and the area is centrally located amid streams for fishing, and the valley is quite wide for game to winter in. Falls Creek is about a mile 129 Heritage Resources–Affected Environment

upstream where trout fishing was very good. Further upstream on the rocky cliffs, were the habitats of the mountain goats and deer were plentiful within the forested areas” (Fish 1990). In addition to these permanent villages, temporary seasonal camps were also established and accessed by a number of trails. As an example, there were trails following Bedal Creek and Elliott Creek to the uplands. These trails were used to access hunting areas and as east-west transportation corridors for the Sauk Indians. Temporary camps were established to access spiritual places and productive seasonal resource locations. Resource use and collection included salmon and other fishes, elk, deer, mountain goat, grouse, huckleberries, cedar, and many other plant and animal species. Plants were used for food and medicine, and for making clothing (e.g. cedar bark) and baskets. The earliest record of Euro-American presence in the Sauk River Valley is from the journal of D.C. Linsley, written during his exploration for the Northern Pacific Railroad in 1870 (Majors and McCollum, 1981). Linsley ascended the Sauk River and the North Fork Sauk River to cross the Cascade Divide. Following Linsley’s exploration, a small number of homesteads were established in the Sauk River Valley but the area remained remote until 1881-1882. In 1881-1882, a wagon road was constructed from Sauk City, on the Skagit River, to Monte Cristo to haul mining equipment and supplies to the mines. Road use decreased after 1893 due to the discovery of Barlow Pass and the completion of the Everett-Monte Cristo railroad that served Monte Cristo via Granite Falls (along the South Fork Stillaguamish River), and due to the gradual decline of mining at Monte Cristo after 1906. A wagon road was also constructed along the north side of Elliott Creek to access mining claims of the Penn Mining Company. Today, the Forest Service uses, in the part, the route of this wagon road as the trail to Goat Lake. It is estimated that in 1911, the Forest Service built a trail and telephone line along the Sauk River from the Clear Creek Ranger Station, south of Darrington, south to Barlow Pass. Early maps show that a Forest Service trail and telephone line existed between the Barlow Pass area and Bedal Creek in the 1920’s. In 1923, the Sauk River Lumber Company (SRLC) started building a logging railroad system upstream from Darrington along the Sauk River. Records indicate that the logging railroad extended upriver as far as the North Fork Sauk River, 1.5 to two miles north of the project area. The SRLC operated in the Sauk River valley until the early 1950s’, when truck logging dominated the industry (Poehlman 1979). The increasing demand for recreation roads led to the completion of the road from Granite Falls to Barlow Pass in 1936, built on top of the then abandoned Monte Cristo railroad grade. Maps indicate that a “good motor road” was being built from Darrington south up the Sauk River in 1936, reportedly by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) (Blukis Onat 1990, USDA Forest Service, 1936). At the time, the SRLC was still operating its railroad logging operation in the Sauk River Valley, and the road and the railroad were both important routes. “The section of road from Barlow Pass to Bedal ran parallel to the old Tote Road [Sauk wagon road] in part, intersected it at Myrtle Lake and Elliott Creek, and followed it where the river valley was narrow” (Blukis Onat, 1990: 26).

130 Heritage Resources–Affected Environment

Road building reached Barlow Pass in 1941, connecting the Sauk River drainage to the South Fork Stillaguamish drainage for automobile traffic. This was the road that later became known as the Mountain Loop Highway and later the Mountain Loop National Forest Scenic Byway. Between Granite Falls and Barlow Pass along the South Fork Stillaguamish River, and between Darrington and the White Chuck River along the Sauk River and the South Fork Sauk River, the Mountain Loop has been widened and paved, and some segments have been rerouted. The approximately 14-mile section between the White Chuck River and Barlow Pass has never been paved, although it has been repaired, including embankment rip rap and road fill replacement, and minor reroutes over time.

Heritage Resources The Mountain Loop road repair project has been determined to meet the definition of an “undertaking” pursuant to Section 301(7) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The National Forest’s responsibility to address the effects of a proposed undertaking on historic properties is fulfilled through a Programmatic Agreement developed in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to Section 800.13 of the 1986 Regulations (36 CFR 800) implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (USDA Forest Service, 1997). A records search for heritage resources resulted in a number of cultural resource survey reports for the project vicinity (e.g. Blukis Onat et al., 1980; Blukis Onat, 1990; Erickson, 1997; Weisdepp, 1993; and Zahn, 1989). Two survey reports specifically addressed road improvement or repair projects within the current project boundaries: Flood Damaged Roads and Bridges of 1981 (Selvig, 1981) and Cultural Resource Inventory of the Mountain Loop Highway (Blukis Onat, 1990). The Inventory of Native American Religious Use, Sites, Localities and Resources was consulted for identified concerns of American Indians (Blukis Onat and Hollenbeck, 1981). As part of the scoping process for the Mountain Loop project, letters were sent to the tribal leaders (refer to Chapter 1 – Public Involvement); no responses were received concerning heritage resources.

Field Survey The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the proposed project was identified as the width of the repair section at each washout location, including from the failed edge on the river side to the top of the new cut slope (see figures in Chapter 1). A records search indicated there were no previously reported cultural resources within the APE. The APE was surveyed in accordance with the Forest’s Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy (Hearne and Hollenbeck, 1996). A cultural resource reconnaissance report was completed in the fall of 2004 (Swain, 2004), and amended in 2006 (Swain, 2006). No historic or prehistoric resources were located within the project APE. The Mountain Loop Highway, although constructed in the 1930’s and 1940’s, has been altered and improved several times over the years through widening, resurfacing, realignment, etc. Due to these alterations, this road no longer exhibits features related to early road building or characteristics representative of CCC projects.

131 Environmental Effects – Heritage Resources

In addition to surveying the APE a the four washout locations, Swain walked the Mountain Loop Highway between mileposts 33 and 35.8, and looked for signs of the trail, telephone line and wagon road which were reported to exist historically adjacent to, or along the current road. Remnants of the telephone line—including insulators and phone wire, and wire used to anchor the insulators to trees— were found, but none within the APE for this project. No other evidence was found relating to historic resources.

Environmental Effects – Heritage Resources

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1-No Action–Heritage Resources This alternative would result in the continuation of natural processes and in the elimination of vehicular access to portions of the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway between Monte Cristo Lakes and Bedal Creek (approximately 2.5 miles of road). There would be no effects to heritage resources resulting from road repairs, and no identified effects to heritage resources resulting from the absence of road repairs.

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternatives 2 or 3–Heritage Resources Implementation of either Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) or 3 would not affect the telephone line remnants that were found adjacent to the Mountain Loop Highway. This is because these insulators are away from the actual work locations. As a result, repairing the four washout sites on the Mountain Loop would result in no effects to known heritage resources, and no effects to historic properties because no resources potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are located within the Area of Potential Effect. In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, the Forest Service forwards documentation of its findings of “No Historic Properties” quarterly to the State Historic Preservation Officer (c.f. USDA Forest Service, 2360, letter to Allyson Brooks, May 9, 2005). Also in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, if a previously unidentified resource is discovered during project implementation, or if an identified resource is affected in an unanticipated way, the Forest Heritage Specialist will be notified and the Forest will fulfill its responsibilities in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (USDA Forest Service, 1997). (Also see Mitigation Measures, Chapter 2.) The following table summarizes the effects to Heritage Resources for both Alternatives 2 and 3: Table 10 Summary of Effects to Heritage Resources – Alternatives 2 and 3 Affected Road Action Eligibility for Possible Effects to Segment Listing on the Historic Properties National Register Rebuild washout sites Repair road by either No Historic None at mileposts 33.1, 33.6, moving the road into Properties were 34.8 and 35.6 the hillside and/or with Located. bridges.

132 Treaty Resources and Reserved Indian Rights

Heritage Resources Cumulative Effects There would be no cumulative effects to heritage resources because there are no known direct or indirect effects of implementing either Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) or Alternative 3.

Treaty Resources and Reserved Indian Rights Treaties, statutes, and executive orders obligate federal agencies to fulfill certain trust responsibilities. The extent to which federally-recognized tribes depend on the Mountain Loop project area for treaty resources (related to hunting, gathering, and fishing on National Forest System lands) is not fully known. For this project, the Forest Service fulfills its general trust responsibilities through the proper management of natural resources, as determined in the Forest Plan (as amended), and through continued consultation with Indian tribal governments.

Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action)–Treaty Resources and Reserved Indian Rights The rights of tribal members to exercise treaty rights on National Forest System lands would be unchanged. The area between Monte Cristo Lakes and the Bedal Campground would be accessible by foot traffic only, if no repairs were completed on the damaged portions of the Mountain Loop. For anticipated effects to tribal hunting, gathering, and fishing practices related to impacts to fish, wildlife, and plant habitat, refer to the various resource sections (above) for discussions of effects of implementation by alternative.

Effects of Implementing Alternatives 2 and 3–Treaty Resources and Reserved Indian Rights Access to the area between Monte Cristo Lakes and the Bedal Campground would be restored for motorized vehicles. There would be no identified effects to tribal hunting, gathering, and fishing practices related to impacts to habitat of fish, wildlife and plants. Refer to the various resource sections for discussions of effects of implementation by alternative.

Treaty Resources and Reserved Indian Rights Cumulative Effects The rights of tribal members to access National Forest System lands and exercise treaty rights would be as reserved in the Point Elliott Treaty. Any limited and minor cumulative effects to the Treaty resources of fish or wildlife would be as disclosed in those sections of the EA. There would be no cumulative effects on plant species.

133 Treaty Resources and Reserved Indian Rights

Visual Resources – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Also see the discussion under Wild and Scenic Rivers, above, for additional discussion on effects on the visual resource in the Wild and Scenic River corridor (repair sites at mileposts 33.6, 34.8, and 35.6). The damage site at milepost 33.1 is located within Late Successional Reserve, with an underlying land allocation of Management Area 2A, Scenic Viewshed, Foreground (USDA FS 1990). Scenic viewsheds accommodate a variety of activities which, to the casual observer, are either not evident or are visually subordinate to the natural landscape. Forest Plan standards for MA 2A for transportation planning include the requirement for roads in the seen or potentially seen area to blend with natural form, line, color, and texture (USDA FS 1990 pg 4-172). Road construction and reconstruction standards and guidelines state: “[c]ut and fill slopes should be revegetated within one year of construction” (USDA FS 1990 pg 4-172). The remaining Mountain Loop Byway repair sites are located within the Wild and Scenic River corridor (and Riparian Reserve). The visual quality objective for Scenic Rivers in the classified corridor (within one-quarter mile) is retention, though partial retention “…may be used for necessary structural facilities” (USDA FS 1990, pg 4-34). Retention is defined as human activities are not evident to the casual Forest visitor; partial retention is defined as human activity may be evident but must remains subordinate to the characteristic landscape (USDA FS 1990 Glossary pg 44). Guidance in the Skagit Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Plan includes management direction R&S 9: reconstructing of roads in existence at the time of river classification will not decrease the values in existence at that date of classification (USDA FS 1983).

Environmental Effects of Implementing the Alternatives If no action were taken (Alternative 1), the effects to the visual resource would be minimal to none. As noted above (Effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers), the damaged portion of the Mountain Loop is not visible to recreational boaters (use occurs downstream from this area). Eroded, non-vegetated portions of the former road bed plus remnants of the old road would remain, but exposed or bare ground is not uncommon along the gravel portion of the road. Over time, roughly eight of the 14-feet of old roadbed would be vegetated by a young, mixed stand. Portions of the old, damaged road fill would be expected to fail and slump into the river, which may impact the look of the area to anyone recreating along the old roadway. For both action alternatives, there are no proposed activities that would change the surrounding foreground viewshed, as viewed from the Mountain Loop Highway. If Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) were implemented, the roadway and views would be similar in character to the pre-flood condition and the scenery would not be altered significantly beyond the construction site. Any bare soils resulting from construction activities would be stabilized and revegetated to minimize erosion potential. At the expected effectiveness for these mitigation measures (80 percent—see discussion under Aquatic Resources and Soils), impacts to scenery would likely be short term. Exposed or bare ground is not uncommon along the gravel portion of the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway. Once vegetation has been reestablished, this change would not be evident.

134 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Affected Environment

The proposed bridge at MP 33.6 is only 60-feet in length and would not be visible at a distance, nor would it viewed by recreational boaters, as this use does not occur this far upstream. The bridge would not span the South Fork Sauk River, but would be built against the side slope. The style of bridge would be similar to bridges that already cross Elliott and Bedal Creeks, In “viewing” the bridge from the Mountain Loop, it—along with the slightly-narrower roadway—would become part of the driving experience of the road. The effects of implementing Alternative 3 are similar to the Proposed Action; however, the visual impact of the two long, multi-span bridges would be quite different in character compared to the pre- flood condition. As noted above, there are other long bridges in the general area and in “viewing” the bridges from the Mountain Loop, they would become part of the driving experience of the road. The bridges at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6 would not been seen from the water, as recreational boating does not occur on this segment of the South Fork Sauk River.

Visual Resources Cumulative Effects As there would be no project effects to the foreground viewshed of the surrounding lands, when viewed from the Mountain Loop Highway, there would be no effects from the proposed Byway repairs that could be added cumulatively to effects from other projects. The only noticeable changes would be to the road itself, including: some minor realignment, the inclusion of a new bridge(s), and less than an acre of newly excavated soils. However, these changes are already on disturbed sites from the original construction and are not expected to detract from the overall appearance of the Mountain Loop corridor. Other past, current, and reasonably-foreseeable future projects that were assessed for this cumulative effects analysis are either located outside of the seen area of the four repair sites, or any residual effects (such as the Bedal Creek culvert removal, or on-going road maintenance of the Mountain Loop) are so minor that they would not, cumulatively, impact the visual resource.

Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Affected Environment The Mountain Loop, a National Forest Scenic Byway, provides outstanding recreational opportunities for the growing population in the greater Puget Sound Region. The Loop is considered a premier driving destination, offering the visitor spectacular views of mountain peaks, rivers, streams, and waterfalls—all within a 30 to 60 minute drive from the densely-populated Seattle-Everett metropolitan area. The loop drive takes approximately 2 to 3 hours to complete and many people take advantage of this unique opportunity (see discussion of Traffic Counts, below). During very mild winters (such as 2004-2005), the Byway may be open to vehicles all winter. Otherwise, Snohomish County traditionally plows the road as far as Deer Creek (on the Granite Falls side), leaving the segment across Barlow Pass to the Bedal gravel pit unplowed and open for snowmobiles, cross-country skiing, and snow-shoeing. The Mountain Loop Byway provides access for all ages to trailheads, campgrounds, picnic sites, historical sites, scenic viewing, hunting, fishing, mushroom picking, berry picking, and mountain biking.

135 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Affected Environment

There are a number of private residences (on private land) at Bedal, an historic settlement area located near the confluence of the South and North Fork Sauk Rivers and the Forest Service concessionaire campground at Bedal, about two miles downstream from the lower damage site at MP 35. 6 (see Developed Recreation, below). Seven residents live year-round at Bedal and Forgotten Mountain Estates; they do routine shopping in Darrington, but also use the Mountain Loop through Verlot and Granite Falls ( Dortch pers. comm. 2006). The 12 to 40 seasonal residents generally access their cabins and summer homes via the Mountain Loop from Granite Falls and Verlot. Since the October 2003 flood, these private landowners have had to drive around though Darrington (at least an extra 25 miles). The MBS 2003 Roads Analysis rated the Mountain Loop at a High Need for recreation and access to both heritage resources and Late Successional Reserve. (It is also High Risk for both aquatic and wildlife resources.) The current operational maintenance level and the proposed maintenance level is Level 4: useable by all vehicle types, constant or intermittent aggregate surface, and user comfort and convenience a moderate priority.

In response to comments received during the 30-day comment period: Based on public comment, the recreation analysis has been enhanced with additional, detailed statistics for summer vehicle traffic.

Road History Proposals to improve the segment of the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway from Darrington to Barlow Pass were first made in 1961. A Final Environmental Impact Statement was issued in 1975, calling for reconstruction of the Byway to two, paved lanes. Following major flooding and road damage in 1980, two segments were improved and paved: the six-mile segment from Beckman Creek (near the National Forest boundary) to the White Chuck River in 1982, and the 3.7 miles from the town of Darrington to Beckman Creek in 1989. In 1989, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) along with the Forest Service and Snohomish County began evaluating the remaining 14-miles of unpaved road. Public meetings were held, and alternatives to the alignment were explored. In 1990, another major storm/flood washed out road segments; Mile Post 33.6 sustained damage in this flood. From 1991 through 1993, preliminary design and engineering work was done and alternatives to by- pass the wash-out areas were considered. In 1994, the interagency team determined that a new EIS should be developed, as conditions and legal requirements had changed substantially. That year, biological studies were conducted and public scoping meetings were held, towards development of a draft EIS. Snohomish County agreed to manage and maintain the road if it could be improved and constructed to County standards and if significant environmental impacts could be mitigated. In late 1995, flooding caused more road damage. The Loop was repaired but no changes in width or road surface were made. Between 1995 and 1997, watershed analysis was completed and additional public involvement began. A number of people requested a broader range of alternatives be examined (options other than widening and paving). With a lack of public support to continue study of paving alternatives, FHWA 136 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Affected Environment officials dropped the project from their program of work in 1998. The Forest Service decided not to continue funding an environmental impact study, planning instead to identify safety issues (such as poor sight distances and lack of turn-outs) and address them with site-specific analysis.

Scenic Byway Status As noted in the Introduction, Chapter 1, the Mountain Loop was designated as a National Forest Scenic Byway in 1990. One of the websites describing Scenic Byways around the country www.byways.org describes the Mountain Loop as follows: “The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest is the ultimate one-stop recreation destination, and its close proximity to Seattle makes it the perfect weekend trip. Even if you only have a day to explore the forest and state parks, you could easily limit your journey to Mountain Loop Scenic Byway and see and do the best of everything.” The Scenic Byways program was the feature article in a recent edition of Highways magazine (December 2005 issue); this monthly magazine is the official publication of the “Good Sam Club.” Road Use

Vehicle Use For an eight-year period, from 1989 through 1996, Forest Service staff installed and maintained a number of traffic counters, including one on each side of the damaged sites: 1) just south of the junction of the Byway with Forest Road 49, less than two miles from the lower repair site at MP 35.6; and 2) along the Byway between Barlow Pass and Monte Cristo, just upstream of the repair site at MP 33.1.38 The traffic counters were in place for different months each year, but were generally installed in the spring or early summer and removed in October or November. Table 11and Table 12 show the seasonal traffic counts for 1989 through 1996 (Darrington District files). No interpretive data were included with the actual counts, but monthly and daily averages have been calculated. Importantly, these counts do not differentiate between weekday or weekend use. Both local MBS experience and County transportation planners note that recreation traffic volumes on Saturdays and Sundays are nearly twice as high (Kurtz 1995). The majority of this use was recreational. In addition, no weather data was collected with the traffic counts, and Kurtz found that recreation use (and demand) on the Mountain Loop tends to be very weather-sensitive. To help determine how many recreationists make the loop drive—as opposed to driving from Granite Falls to the access to Monte Cristo town site, at Barlow Pass and then returning the same direction— Snohomish County traffic counts were analyzed; see Table 13, page 55. While there is not much overlap in the years data were collected, the county did have a counter at Buck Creek, a good site for comparison: it is located about 2.5 miles west of Barlow Pass but east of Deer Creek, where in the winter months, the Loop is closed to wheeled vehicle traffic.

38 Due to lack of staff and funding, the counters were removed at the end of 1996. 137 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Affected Environment

Table 11–Vehicle Counts near Junction of Mountain Loop and Road 49 (North Fork Sauk River)

Year (Number) and Total Vehicle Average Average Daily Installed Months Counter Count Monthly Use Use Installed 1996 (5) June - Oct 17,384 3,477 114 1995 (10) Jan – Oct 25,430 2,543 83 1994 (7) Apr - Dec 30,659 4,380 144 1993 (7) May - Nov 29,595 4,228 139 1992 (9) Mar - Nov 31,643 3,516 115 1991 (7) Apr - Oct 24,435 3,490 114 1990 (6) June - Nov 22,370 3,728 122 1989 (5) July - Nov 15,918 3,184 104

Table 12–Vehicle Counts Between Barlow Pass and Monte Cristo Lake Year Installed (Number) and Total Vehicle Average Average Daily Months Counter Count Monthly Use Use Installed 1996 (6) June - Nov 22,960 3,826 125 1995 (6) May – Oct 32,121 5,353 176 1994 (5) July – Nov 19,171 3,834 126 1993 (7) May - Nov 31,522 4,503 148 1992 (9) Mar - Nov 34,891 3,877 127 1991 (6) May - Oct 27,001 4,500 148 1990 (6) June - Nov 26,181 4,364 143 1989 (5) July - Nov 17,667 3,533 116

During the eight years of daa collecting, monthly traffic use was fairly consistent except for 1995, at the first counter. As there are no records that explain the drop in traffic (no flood problems with the road from January through October), it is possible that the traffic counter failed or there was some other blockage (down tree, etc.). The numbers for the two Forest Service traffic counters—one on each side of the damaged section of the Mountain Loop—are similar enough that they could support the conclusion the majority of drivers make the loop drive. To help validate this conclusion, Snohomish County traffic counts from Buck Creek are shown in Table 13. The traffic counter is located about 2.5 miles west of Barlow Pass and east of Deer Creek, when the county traditionally stops plowing in snowy winter months. Only two years of data overlap with the records from the Forest Service traffic counters. Also, all of the data for these traffic counters are raw and do not differentiate between weekday and weekend use or east/west travel. However, the numbers do allow some cautioned conclusions.

138 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Affected Environment

Table 13–Snohomish County Vehicle Counts at Buck Creek, About 2.5 West of Barlow Pass39

Year Average Daily Use

1996 181

1995 232 In 1995, 232 vehicles passed the counter at Buck Creek, west of Barlow Pass, and 176 vehicles passed the traffic counter east of Barlow Pass, between the Pass and Monte Cristo Lake. In 1996, the numbers are similar: 181 vehicles passed Buck Creek and 125 passed the counter between Barlow Pass and Monte Cristo Lake. With three points of data collection, and given the similarity of numbers between the two traffic counters on either side of the damaged section of the Byway, one could cautiously conclude that a majority of visitors driving the Mountain Loop do not simply drive from Granite Falls to Barlow Pass, and the access to the old Monte Cristo town site (a popular recreation attraction), but do continue on the Loop drive. This conclusion is supported by Forest specialists and local knowledge. However, the limitations of the data (and only two years of overlapping data) must be considered. In the 1995 study (prepared for Federal Highway Administration, as part of the proposed Mountain Loop upgrade/paving), Snohomish County transportation planner Johannes Kurtz used the collected traffic counts and projected population growth in the Puget Sound area to estimate future vehicle use on the Mountain Loop. Assuming that the unpaved portion stayed unpaved, Kurtz estimated that by the year 2010, annual traffic flow would be 46,571 vehicles, with a monthly maximum volume of 10,618 vehicles. He also projected that the weekend, maximum daily volume could be approximately 800 vehicles (Kurtz 1995). While complete data to verify these predications are not available, Forest specialists felt that on sunny, summer weekends and holidays, a count of 600 to 800 vehicles per day was certainly reasonable (Hamilton pers. comm. 2006, G. Paull pers. comm. 2006).

Winter Use The Forest Service has no data on numbers of recreation users of the Mountain Loop during winter, when (for most years) the road receives heavy snow and is not plowed for wheeled, passenger vehicles or trucks. As noted in Chapter 1, Snohomish County traditionally plows the Loop as far as Deer Creek, near Silverton on the Granite Falls side. The segment across Barlow Pass to the Bedal gravel pit— which encompasses the damaged section—is left unplowed and open for winter recreation use: snow- shoeing, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling. See Dispersed Recreation Use, below, for more.

Recreation Use

Dispersed Recreation Use—Summer and Winter Dispersed recreation activities make up a large portion of the recreation in the project area. Long-time users of the area are generally made up of local residents of Darrington, Granite Falls, Marysville,

39 Average Daily Traffic at this counter for 1997 was 165 vehicles; for 1998 = 216; for 1999 = 117; for the year 2000 = 183; 2001 = 381; and 2002= 215 vehicles (Snohomish County Public Works, Traffic Operations 2006). 139 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Affected Environment

Everett, and Lake Stevens, plus the greater Puget Sound metropolitan area and Lower British Columbia, Canada. For much of the year, seasonal and traditional dispersed uses include camping (dispersed, non-fee), picnicking, hiking, wild mushrooms gathering, berry picking, game hunting, target shooting, fishing, and some tr apping. The rules and regulations for hunting and fishing are determined and administered by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Dispersed camping use-levels are considered to be high. Particularly during summer and on holidays, dispersed visitors utilize every wide spot in the road and every turn-out for dispersed camping and/or picnicking. The 1996 Watershed Analysis reported the highest concentration of dispersed campsites was between Barlow Pass and Bedal Campground: a total of 56 (of the 108 documented dispersed campsites along the Sauk River, North Fork Sauk, and South Fork Sauk Rivers (USDA FS 1996). Many long-time users have favorite spots. The old Chocwich campground, located between the damages sites at MP 34.8 and 35.6, is a traditional dispersed camping area; some families have been camping there for decades. The original Chocwich campground was partially destroyed by flooding in the early 1980’s. It was then turned into a free, dispersed area, with five campsites and a vault toilet. The area has not been maintained since the 2003 flood event and is currently accessible only by foot. However, with the popularity of the Mountain Loop—even with this segment closed to traffic—District specialists estimate that the area would continue to receive at least 20 parties per week (and would thus remain “high-use” as defined for wildlife such as grizzly bear). During the winter months (November through May), the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway Highway provides access for snowmobiles, cross country skiing, snow-shoeing and other winter recreation— depending upon snow accumulation. (The road was open and snow-free the winter of 2004-2005.) This creates a pristine winter recreation opportunity from Deer Creek (Verlot side) to the Bedal gravel pit (Darrington side). Snow mobiles routinely use both sides of the route to access the Monte Cristo town site.

Trails This portion of the Mountain Loop provides access to several, heavily-used trails. See Figure 27, below. The access route and trailhead to several trails is at the end of the remaining segment of Road 4080. Road 4080 takes off from the Mountain Loop between mileposts 33.6 and 34.8 and due to the flood damage, is currently not accessible to wheeled vehicles. The trailhead serves hiking trail # 647.1 (Elliott Creek Trail) and the mountain bike trail #647.2 (the Chocwich Bike Route), which ties into Trail #647 (which is also open to bicycles). Trail # 647.1 starts from the trailhead and follows Elliott Creek 4.2 miles to the wilderness boundary, and then another mile to Goat Lake within the Henry M. Jackson Wilderness; old-growth trees along Elliott Creek provide exceptional scenery. This trail receives heavy use—an estimated 5,000 visitors annually (Paull pers. comm. 2006)—and is designed for hikers at the Easiest Difficulty. Note that Goat Lake also receives heavy use. However, since more and more visitors are day-hiking into this area, as opposed to overnight camping, impacts to wilderness resources at Goat Lake have been decreasing (Paull pers. comm. 2006).

140 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Affected Environment

Figure 27–Trails in Vicinity of Mountain Loop Repair Sites

² # Mountain Loop Repair Sites k Mer Cree ry B tin roo Mar k Henry M. Jackson Wilderness T. 30 N. T. 30 N. 4 015 016 0

9

Trails 6 018 017 013 20

# Pe MP 35.6 rry Cr eek

y a w B h e ig da l r H C ive p re R o 022 ek 021 o L 019 in 020 ork Sauk a ek t 024 re n 64 C u 7. ck South F o 2 Bu M

7 0 # 5 R. 11 E. MP 34.8

R. 11 E.

k

e

e

r

C

h

c

i

w

c

o

h C

027 029 028 030 MP 33.1 MP 33.6 025 # # 0 8 0 4 E ll io tt C re ek

6 4 7 64 .1 7 032 033 034 036 031

141 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Affected Environment

Trail #647.2, the Chocwich Bike Route, follows an old road and is a level route of about six miles in length. The eastern end of this mountain bike trail ties into the end of Road 4096, past Bedal Creek at the lower end of the project area. The bike trail is currently accessible from the Darrington side and Road 4096—which now serves as the trailhead. Trail #647—which takes off from #647.2—is also open to mountain bikes as far as the wilderness boundary; see Figure 27. This route follows an old, abandoned logging road; it receives heavy use and is rated Easiest difficulty. The two mountain bike routes are among only three opportunities along the Mountain Loop. The third route is the 4710 Road, up to the old town site of Monte Cristo. The road is closed to public traffic and it is still accessible from the Granite Falls/Verlot side of the Byway.

Other Low-Elevation Trails Near Proposed Project There are several barrier-free, low-elevation trails west of the damaged sites, on the Stillaguamish River side of Barlow Pass. Big Four Ice-Caves trail is a world-class barrier free trail, located roughly five miles west of Barlow Pass. The one-mile trail (with loop at lower end) includes interpretive signs and provides breath-taking views of Big Four Mountain Ice Caves. This trail has an easier-grade all the way to the ice cave viewpoint. The Youth-on-Age barrier-free trail is just off the Mountain Loop and about 12 miles west of Barlow Pass. This trail loops through a cathedral-like rain forest on the banks of the Stillaguamish. Finally, the short pave trail at Gold Basin Mill Pond (just 2.4 miles east of Verlot) includes interpretive signs and views of the old mill pond from a unique, floating viewpoint. To the east of the Mountain Loop repair sites: the White Chuck River Bench Trail #731 is also an “easiest” trail. Located on the north side of the river, portions of this trail were damaged in the flood.

Developed Recreation There is one developed campground near the project area: Bedal Campground40 is located adjacent to the Mountain Loop, roughly two miles downstream from the repair site at milepost 35.6. The campground is currently accessible by vehicle from the town of Darrington. Typically, it is open for use from Memorial Day to Labor Day. This is a fee campground with 18 campsites, including 13 reservation sites and five available on a first-come, first-served basis. Table 14-Bedal Campground Visitor Use Year Visitation Daily Cost of Though Bedal Campground was open in 2004 and Campsite 2005, visitation appears to have been affected by 2005 989 $ 12. the closure of the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway, 2004 826 $ 11. as shown in Table 14. 2003 1,483 $ 10. Another factor to be considered is the increase in 2002 1,878 $ 10. user fees over the past four years.

40 Operated under a concessionaire agreement with Recreation Resource Management, who operate and maintain the campground. 142 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Environmental Effects

Water-Based Recreation As noted above in Wild and Scenic Rivers, the upstream limit of most water-borne recreation on the Sauk River is at Bedal Campground, at the confluence of the North Fork and South Fork Rivers (and about two miles downstream from the proposed repair sites). The road damage is not visible from the river for the majority of on-river recreation use.

Tourism, Local Economy According to the U.S. Census (2000) the four primary industry types for the Darrington area (Census Tract 537) are: 1) manufacturing; 2) education, health, and social services; 3) construction; and 4) agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining. The median household income in the year 2000 was approximately $35,052; about 8.3 percent of households live below the poverty level. The Darrington community has been trying to diversify its local economy to increase tourism and recreation. While exact statistics are not available, it can be assumed that the majority of recreation visitors come from the greater Puget Sound area; they use the project area to camp and recreate for multiple days, or for just a day hike or recreational loop drive. Recreationists spend money to acquire recreation equipment , and on food, transportation, lodging, and other services for travel to and from their recreation sites. Much of this money is spent in their home area, prior to the start of the trip. Some spending would occur along the way and possibly near the destination site. These expenditures contribute to personal income and to the creation and maintenance of jobs in the affected economic sectors (e.g., lodging, gas, groceries, restaurants, auto repair, etc.).However, assuming that most recreation users come from the greater Puget Sound area (a 30-60 minute drive from the Mountain Loop), it can be assumed that few recreationists actually stay in lodging in the Darrington area. Most recreationists are likely to spend money in the Darrington area only for incidentals (snacks, forgotten food items and supplies), restaurant meals, or possibly fueling their vehicles (a small portion of the recreation trip expenditures). The cost of gasoline has been discussed in relationship to repairing the damaged sites on the Mountain Loop, though the implications for recreational driving over the Mountain Loop have not been formally studied. However, a December 2005 article in Highways magazine noted that RV owners are likely to explore destinations closer to home. Thus, recreation use may increase on an urban-proximate forest such as the MBS, and on the Mountain Loop (a 30 to 60 minute drive from the Everett-Seattle area).

Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy– Environmental Effects

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action) If the No Action Alternative were implemented, there would be permanent change in access routes to the entire South Fork Sauk drainage. The Mountain Loop National Scenic Byway would no longer be a “loop” road, and the loss of the loop experience would likely displace a number of recreationists driving-for-pleasure (see Effects on Economy, page 143). It is estimated that, at some point in time,

143 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Environmental Effects

guidebooks, websites, etc. would address the loss of the loop drive.41 The 2.5 mile segment would be removed from the Forest Road System. Permanent closure of the Mountain Loop would not meet Forest Plan goals for a transportation system (see Chapter 1, Relevant Goals, Standards, Guidelines) or meet access needs (USDA FS 2003). Year-around residents at Bedal and Forgotten Mountain Estates, and seasonal landowners would only have access to their property through Darrington and State Highway 530 (which continues to be at risk from landslides). This would add at least 20 to 25 miles for owners coming from the greater Seattle area. Forest administration would also be affected. Likewise, those wishing to access recreation sites near Bedal Creek from the Granite Falls side would have to drive an additional 20 miles. Recreation use on the 2.5-mile segment that would be limited to those who are capable of walking, though use of the remaining roadbed would be possible for some time, especially along the undamaged parts of the 2.5-mile segment. Any such access would not be universally accessible. Due to the high number of dispersed sites in the area and the overall popularity of the Mountain Loop, recreation use is expected to remain high (defined as at least 20 parties per week). As discussed under Effects on Aquatic Resources and Soils, the river would continue to erode the road prism at mileposts 33.6 and 35.6; the rate of erosion would depend upon the timing and size of future flood events. Road fill at mileposts 33.1 and 34.8 would continue to be lost during and after flood events, but not as dramatically as at MP 33.5 and 35.6. Vegetation and trees would reestablish on a portion of the roadbed over time, but not the entire road, as recreation use would still be expected to be high. Winter users would be affected: the route would be permanently blocked to snowmobile use and very difficult impossible to access via cross-country skis or snow-shoes. Vehicle access to Road 4080 would remain blocked, as would direct vehicle access to the trailhead for Trails # 647.1 and 647.2. These trails could still be accessed by foot; walking from the damage site at MP 33.1, the hike would be about 1.5 miles longer (with rough sections to traverse at MP 33.6). Vehicle access to Trail # 647.2 from the Darrington side and Road 4096 would remain open. No estimates on changed levels of use at Goat Lake are available, but recreation use at this wilderness lake has dropped an estimated 90 percent since vehicle access to the trailhead was blocked, following the 2003 flood. It is estimated that use at this lake would continue to be much lower than pre-flood levels (Paull, pers. comm. 2006) It is expected that the Mountain Loop Byway segment between Granite Falls and the road block at Monte Cristo Lake would still be utilized for dispersed recreation and to access all of the recreation opportunities at Barlow Pass and Monte Cristo. However, it is anticipated that the Mountain Loop segment between Darrington and Bedal Creek would receive less dispersed camping use, as recreationists would have to travel at least another 20 miles up through Darrington and back around to the Mountain Loop Highway.

41 There is no information regarding the implications for the road’s National Forest Scenic Byway status. 144 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Environmental Effects

It is expected that the Bedal Campground would continue to experience greatly reduced use. Comparing use figures from summer 2002 (pre-flood) and summer 2004—the first summer after the October 2003 flood (see Table 11)—there was a 56 percent reduction of people using this facility. Lost revenue, even with the increase in daily costs, was about $2,000 in 2004. While the level of use started to grow again during the second summer after the flood event (up to 989 visits), use and revenue would be expected to remain below pre-flood figures if the no action alternative were implemented.

In response to comments received during the 30-day comment period: At least one respondent felt that if the Mountain Loop were not reopened, dispersed site clean up and maintenance would cost less. There is a need to reopen the road to meet Forest Plan standards for a transportation system at a standard to meet planned uses and activities (see Need for Action, Chapter 1), including administration by MBS officials. Walking in to clean up the dispersed recreation sites along the 2.5 mile damaged portion would ultimately take more time (and thus cost more), based on experience elsewhere on this Forest.

The direct project effects on the local economy of not repairing the Mountain Loop would generally not be measurable separate from general fluctuations brought on by a variety of other factors (national and regional economy, weather, events in Darrington, etc.). However, with a permanent reduction in numbers of recreation users, the loss of money spent for incidentals in the Darrington area would have a measurable effect on individual, local retail businesses. For more, see the Cumulative Effects discussion, below. There would also be no opportunities for local companies to bid on any road repair work at the four damaged sites, if No Action were implemented.

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action) and 3 Implementation of either action alternative would meet Forest Plan goals for a transportation system to support planned activities and uses, meet High access needs for recreation (and access to heritage resources and LSR) (USDA FS 2003), and would meet Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for roads: “…designed, constructed, and/or reconstructed according to standards appropriate to planned uses, activities, safety, economics, and impacts on land and resources, using criteria in FSM 7700 and 7720, or as revised” (1990 pg 4-140). Construction work, which would start in summer 2006 through the fall (some final work may occur in 2007), could impact recreationists during the moving in and moving out of equipment though effects would be minor and the road would be signed (see Chapter 2, Mitigation). The moving out phase would occur in late fall, past the most popular recreation season. Rock haul could also have minor impacts, though dispersed recreation users would probably not be affected. As mitigated, drivers would be aware of on-going work during the week. No construction haul work would be done on weekends or holidays (see Mitigation Measures). Access for private landowners (year-around and seasonal) and Forest administrative use would be restored. And while the risk remains (particularly at MP 33.6—see Aquatic Resources), realignment of the Mountain Loop further from the South Fork Sauk River and upgrading culverts etc. would result in a road constructed on a more stable road base that would better withstand future floods. [The proposed

145 Access and Recreation Use, Tourism and Local Economy–Environmental Effects

repairs would not simply replace the road in the existing alignment, with rip-rap, as was generally the case in past repairs.] All recreation use would be expected to return to pre-flood use and, as the populations of the surrounding communities increase, it would be expected that use of the National Forest, especially in and around the Mountain Loop Highway would also increase. It is also expected that the use of Bedal Campground (and revenues from it) would also return to pre-flood levels. Implementation of either Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) or 3 would not likely have a direct effect that would be measurable in the local economy, separate from general fluctuations brought on by a variety of other factors (national and regional economy, weather, events in Darrington, etc.). The restoration of the loop drive would bring a pre-flood level of recreation-visitor dollars back to the local businesses in Darrington. At an estimated $10.00 per vehicle for food, gas, etc., the returns to local businesses would be measurable. Neither alternative would directly create new jobs for people, but implementation of either action alternative would provide opportunities for existing companies to bid on road repair contracts.

Access and Receration, Tourism and Local Economy Cumulative Effects The area of potential cumulative effect for recreation users, including those driving for pleasure, includes a large portion of the Darrington Ranger District. The floods of 2003 damaged a great number of roads and trails in the South Fork Sauk, Suiattle, and White Chuck River drainages. This flooding reduced recreation opportunities on the district and reduced access (both roads and trails) to Glacier Peak Wilderness. Roughly half of the 367 miles of trails on the district are estimated to be inaccessible due to road and trail damage; this includes many trails that access the Glacier Peak Wilderness. Repair of the Mountain Loop National Forest Scenic Byway, cumulatively with the proposed repair of the other road systems and bridges damaged in the October 2003 flood (including Gold Mountain and the White Chuck Bridge,42 Suiattle Road 26,43 and White Chuck Road 23) would result in re- establishment of access to recreation areas and roads. Areas that would again be accessible are: the White Chuck drainage, the Suiattle drainage, the White Chuck Boat Launch, Glacier Peak Wilderness, and dispersed recreation sites for a wide variety of users.44 Access from either the Granite Falls or Darrington portals to the drainages would be re-established. Driving for pleasure is considered a major recreational pursuit on the National Forests, and the cumulative effects of the project with other projects in the watershed is to re-establish the Mountain Loop (44 miles), access on the White Chuck (10.6 miles), and dispersed use on Gold Mountain (17 miles). Use of campgrounds, such as Bedal on the Mountain Loop Byway, should be similar or higher than the use prior to the 2003 flooding. If none of the 2003 flood damage were repaired (no action alternatives on the Mountain Loop Highway, Suiattle Road 26, White Chuck Road 23, and Gold Mountain road system), the cumulative recreation effect on the Darrington District would be the displacement of all types of recreation users to other parts of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and potentially off-Forest. There would be a

42 Decision signed February 14, 2006. 43 Decision signed March 30, 2006. 44 Including commercial and private rafters/kayaks from the White Chuck boat launch and mushroom and cone collection, berry picking, camping, hunting, and fishing in the Gold Mountain, Suiattle, and Mountain Loop areas.

146 Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, Unroaded Lands

continuing impact on Darrington businesses from the reduced number of tourists and recreationists.45 Table 15 displays the number of visitors at the Darrington Ranger Station over the past seven years. Table 15–Walk-in Visitors to Darrington Ranger District Office Year Visitors There were significantly fewer visitors at the Ranger Station in 2005 7,361 2004, following the October 2003 flood. Note: these figures do not 2004 7, 011 2003 10,851 include phone calls, mail or email responses to other visitors who 2002 11,021 may use the area. 2001 9,824 2000 8,941 Letters from local businesses and the Mayor of Darrington indicated that the drop in tourism from the cumulative number of road closures has affected the businesses in town. There are no data to measure exact impacts, but many community members feet that reopening the roads would benefit local stores, gas stations, etc. (Darrington community meetings, October 2005 and January 2006).

Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, Unroaded Lands All of the proposed repair sites are located on the Mountain Loop National Scenic Byway; and all proposed work would occur within or very close to the existing road prism. The project is not located within Congressionally-designated Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, or unroaded lands. The closest wilderness is Henry M. Jackson, totaling 103,247 acres (75,798 acres on the MBS). The northern-most boundary is located close to the North Fork Sauk River. The northwest boundary runs along the steep slope south-east and south of the Mountain Loop and Elliott Creek. Refer to Figure 8, in Chapter 1 (land allocations). As discussed above, Forest Trail # 647 accesses Goat Lake, just inside the wilderness boundary. There would be no direct effects on the Henry M. Jackson Wilderness if any of the alternatives were implemented, including no action. Indirectly, recreation use at Goat Lake— which has decreased greatly since vehicle access to the trailhead at the end of Road 4080 has been blocked—would likely remain at much lower levels than pre-flood if no action were implemented. If the Byway is re-opened (Alternatives 2 or 3), use at Goat Lake would be expected to gradually increase to pre-flood levels over a several year period. The indirect effects on the lake and surrounding wilderness resources would be similar to the pre-flood situation: since more and more visitors are day- hiking to Goat Lake rather than camping overnight, human-use impacts have been decreasing each year (Paull pers. comm. 2006). No cumulative effects on the wilderness would be expected with any alternative. There are several parcels of Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) near the Mountain Loop—generally small parcels adjacent to Henry M. Jackson Wilderness (parts of the former RARE II parcel Glacier Peak L). None of these parcels were included as wilderness in the most recent Washington State Wilderness Act (1984). The largest IRA is located on the opposite side of the South Fork Sauk River from the Byway: the Dickerman Mountain parcel of the Boulder River Roadless Area. Refer to Appendix C in the Forest Plan for more information (USDA FS 1990, pg C-130 and C-181). There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on any IRA or its roadless character if any of the alternatives were implemented, including no action. If the Byway were not repaired, the project area

45 A letter from the Mayor of Darrington (August 2005) indicates that the drop in tourism has affected the businesses in the town; see project files.

147 Environmental Justice

would remain roaded or somewhat roaded in character for this 2.5 mile stretch, for many years. No road decommissioning would be done, nor road surface/drainage structures removed. High recreation use would result in vegetation re-establishing itself on roughly eight feet of the 14-foot wide road surface, over time (long term). All of the proposed repair sites are located along a road or within eight to 100 feet of the current road prism. The estimated effects would be the same as disclosed above (no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect).

Environmental Justice In the past decade, the concept of Environmental Justice has emerged as an important component of Federal regulatory programs, initiated by Executive Order No. 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. Environmental justice is defined as the pursuit of equal justice and equal protection under the law for all environmental statutes and regulations, without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. The minority and low-income groups living in Snohomish County work in diverse occupations. Some minorities, low-income residents, and Native Americans may rely on forest products or related forest activities for their livelihood. The demographics of the affected area were examined to determine the presence of minority, low income, or tribal populations in the area of potential effect. Table 16, below shows the race and ethnic profile of Snohomish County compared to the entire state of Washington, as of the year 2000. Table 16–Race and Ethnicity Profile – Year 2000, Snohomish County, Washington State Snohomish County Washington State

Total Population (2000) 606,024 5,894, 121 Estimated Population* Estimated Population*

and Percent of Co. Total and Percent of State Total American Indian, Alaskan Native 8,480 (1.4%) 94,300 (1.6%) Black or African American 10,300 (1.7%) 188,600 (3.2%) Asian 35,140 (5.8%) 324,150 (5.5%) Hispanic or Latino 28,480 (4.7%) 442,100 (7.5%) White 518,750 (85.6%) 4,821,400 (81.8%) Other 4,940 (0.8%) 23,580 (0.4%) * Figures are rounded, thus totals may be off. Data from the website at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53061.html.

Environmental Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) – Environmental Justice Not repairing the four damaged sites and re-establishing the route of the Mountain Loop Byway through the 2.5 mile section would limit access and add travel time (an additional 20 miles each way) for recreations, private land owners at Bedal Creek and the surrounding area, and for use of the entire area for tribal members. Private land owners at Bedal Creek and the surrounding area in particular would have access to their property only from the Darrington side of the Mountain Loop, rather than through Granite Falls and Verlot.

148 Other Resources

People who wish to access recreation areas from the greater Seattle area and Forest Service administrators would have to drive an additional 40+ miles round-trip to access recreation areas or to administer Forest Service lands.

Environmental Effects of Implementing Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action) or 3– Environmental Justice Implementation of either Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) or 3 would restore road access to previous use areas and would be expected to have no disproportionately high or adverse effects to low income or minority populations. There would be no cumulative effects.

Other Resources Minerals, energy, fire, and insects and disease were considered, but as there are no direct or indirect effects from the proposed Mountain Loop repair of four damage sites on any of these resources, they are not discussed further, as per 40 CFR 1501.7. By definition, there would also be no cumulative effects. The issue of global warming and climate effects, related to the frequency of flood events in the Cascade Mountains was raised during the 30-day comment period on the Preliminary EA. The history of flooding in the South Fork Sauk River drainage is addressed in several sections of this EA: see Chapter 1, Chapter 3, Flood History, and Appendix B, Historic Flood Damage. Otherwise, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from the project would be expected. Noise effects are discussed above, in relationship to estimated effects on fish and wildlife.

Air Quality Effects The Glacier Peak Wilderness (some miles east of Henry M. Jackson Wilderness and the project area) is a Class I area for air quality protection. Visibility is a value that is protected primarily within the boundaries of Class I areas. The only other wilderness on the MBS that is currently classified as Class I is Alpine Lakes. No burning is planned in the Mountain Loop Byway repair project, so there would be no impacts on visibility from smoke. Any dust from proposed repair work would be short-term in duration (a few months at most) and very site-specific to the four repair sites, totaling 200 feet for MP 33.1, 400 feet for MP 33.6, 200 feet for MP 34.8, and 400 feet for MP 35.6. There would be no effects past the construction phase. Once the road is reopened, any dust impacts from motor vehicle use would return to previous levels. No cumulative effects would be expected.

Prime Forestland, Farmland, and Rangeland Prime forestland, as defined by Natural Resources Conservation Service46 may be found near the project area; however, none of the alternatives including no action would have any measurable impact on such land. There is no prime farmland or rangeland within the project area.

46 Land capable of growing wood at the rate of 85 cubic feet per acre per year at culmination of mean annual increment.

149 Other Resources

Wetlands and Floodplains Effects (EO 11988 and 11990) No wetlands were identified at the four failure sites. All proposed road relocations would involve moving into steep hillsides or next to the rock cliff at MP 33.6. The new road cut slopes would intercept subsurface water—especially at MP 35.6, where water flows over shallow bedrock—but no wetlands would be affected. The proposed Mountain Loop repairs would not cause short- or long-term impacts to the South Fork Sauk River floodplain. The proposed repairs have been designed to minimize the effect of the road on the river. The Mountain Loop National Scenic Byway has been in place as a road for decades; it does occupy and modify pieces of a narrow, discontinuous floodplain of the South Fork Sauk River. However, repair sites at mileposts 33.1 and 34.8 are located well above the floodplain. At mileposts 33.6 and 35.6, the road and the river are both located up against the valley wall and the floodplain is on the opposite side of the river. The proposed repairs, if implemented, would place the Mountain Loop above the floodplain elevation.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources An irreversible commitment of resources results from a decision to use or modify resources that is renewable only over a long period of time. The actions described in this document would not cause any irreversible commitment of resources other than removing rock from a Forest Service owned pit or through a commercial source, for use in the proposed road repair and resurfacing of the damaged sections. An irretrievable commitment of resources occurs when opportunities are foregone for the period of time that the resource cannot be used. The Mountain Loop National Scenic Byway is a reversible commitment because it is possible to obliterate the entire road site and return the area to its previous condition. However, the Mountain Loop is not scheduled for obliteration and thus represents an irretrievable commitment of resources for as long as this highway is a valued asset to the surrounding communities. A resource that would be irretrievably lost as a result of the commitment to site reconstruction is an irretrievable loss of tree growth and wildlife habitat where vegetation is removed.

Potential Conflicts with Plans and Policies of Other Jurisdictions Numerous governmental agencies, Tribal Governments (and representatives) as well as private individuals and organizations have been contacted in the preparation of this analysis (see Chapter 4 and the project files). There was also considerable media coverage (see Chapter 1 and Appendix A). There are no known conflicts between the alternatives discussed in this document and the plans and policies of these other jurisdictions.

150

Audubon Society, Deming Chapter 4 – Agencies and Audubon Society, N. Cascades Chapter Persons Consulted Audubon Society-Skagit Chapter Backcountry Bicycle Trails Club Backcountry Horsemen of Washington Note: refer to Project Files for individuals contacted. Biodiversity Northwest Burlington Chamber of Commerce US Army Corps. Of Engineers Burlington Northern Railroad US Environmental Protection Agency Cascade Adventures, Inc. USDC NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Concrete Chamber of Commerce Northwest Region Conservation Northwest [NWEA] USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Western CORBA Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey Crystal Conservation Coalition USDI North Cascades National Park Darrington Branch Library Darrington Hardware Washington State Dept. of Ecology, EDASC Northwest Regional Office Everett Mountaineers Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife: Everett School District #2 Offices in La Conner, Mill Creek, Everett Ski School Mt. Vernon, and Olympia Evergreen Express Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Federation of Fly Fishers Habitat Division Ferndale Chamber of Commerce Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Fidalgo Fly Fishers Lands and Restoration Services Program Focus Washington State Dept. of Natural Resource Forest Watch Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources Fun City 4x4’s Natural Heritage Program Grandview Station Washington State Parks and Recreation Granite Falls Branch Library Granite Falls Chamber of Commerce Lummi Indian Business Council Granite Falls School Board Nooksack Indian Tribal Council Halldata Inc. Samish Tribe Hampston Tree Farms, Inc. Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Council High Lakers Upper Skagit Tribal Community Huck Finn Adventures Snoqualmie Tribe IMBA Stillaguamish Board of Directors Integrity Systems Swinomish Tribal Community Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Tulalip Board of Directors International Llama Association Iron Goat Trail Skagit River System Cooperative KOMO Radio and Television Lind Shake Mayor-City of Arlington Longview Fibre Company Mayor-City of Granite Falls Lynden Chamber of Commerce Lyon Ski School 4th Corner Fly Fishers Marblemount Chamber of Commerce Access to Nature Miller Shingle Company Adventure Press Monte Cristo Preservation Association Alpine Adventures, Wild & Scenic River Tours Mount Baker Hiking Club Alpine Ascents International Mount Vernon Chamber of Commerce Alpine Fly Fishers Mountain Madness Alpine Lakes Protection Society Mountain School American Alpine Club Mountain View Inn American Alpine Institute National Outdoor Leadership School, Pacific Arlington Chamber or Commerce Northwest Branch Arlington Times National Campers and Hikers Audubon Society, Bellingham Chapter National Parks and Conservation Association

151

Native Forest Council Snohomish County P.U.D. Nooksack Riders Snohomish County Public Works Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association Snohomish County Road Maintenance North Cascades Conservation Council Snohomish County Surface Water Management North Cascades River Expeditions Snohomish County Tribune Northern Toys 4WD Club Stevens Pass, Inc. Northwest Fly Anglers Stillaguamish Nature Trails Northwest Glacier Cruisers Snowmobile Club Stilly-Snohomish Fisheries Task Force Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Task Force for the Disabled Northwest Motorcycle Association The Mountaineers (and Mountaineer Ski Club) Northwest Steelheader The Nature Conservancy NWSTC The Wilderness Society ORV User Association Timber Watch Oso Store Tom Thumb Grocery Pacific Crest Trail Association Town of Darrington Pacific Northwest 4-Wheel-Drive Association Town of Granite Falls Penguin Ski Club Town of Skykomish Pilchuck Audubon Society Trailblazers Puget Sound Energy Traildusters Rails-to-Trails, Washington Chapter Volunteers for Outdoor Washington Reece Brothers Logging Washington Native Plant Society Rivers, Inc. Washington Recreation Runners Association Riverside Grocery Washington State Hi-Lakers Scenic River Advisory Board Washington State Snowmobile Association Scenic Rivers State Park Washington Trails Association Seattle Audubon Society Washington Trout Seattle-Snohomish Mill Washington Wilderness Coalition Seattle Times Wenatchee Whitewater Trips Sierra Club Whatcom Backcountry Horsement Sierra Club, Eastside Chapter Whatcom County Chamber of Commerce Skagit Alpine Club Whatcom County Snowmobile Club Skagit Backcounty Horsemen Whatcom County Water Resources Division Skagit County Commissioners Wilderness Watch Skagit County Parks and Recreation Whitehorse Mecantile Skagit County Public Works Wild and Scenic River Tours Skagit Enhancement Group Wildcat Steelheaders Skagit Wildcat Steelheaders Wildwater River Tours Snohomish County Parks Division W.O.L.F. Snohomish County Planning Dept., Everett

152

List of Preparers Don Davison Team Leader/Writer Editor Barry Gall Fisheries Jim Doyle Fisheries Phil Kincare Wild and Scenic Rivers Greta Movassaghi Wild and Scenic Rivers Stephanie Swain Heritage Resources Jan Hollenbeck Heritage and Treaty Resources Roger Nichols Geology Kerensa King Wildlife Don Gay Wildlife Ann Risvold Botany Ron Hausinger Hydrology Gary Ketcheson Hydrology Megan Impson Recreation Wayne Hamilton Engineering Peter Wagner Engineering Jamia Hansen-Murray NEPA Oversight, Editing Paula James GIS Cindy White Editing and Web Formatting Gary Paull Trails, Wilderness Michael Howard Engineering Jesse Plumage Wildlife, Consultation Christopher Hansen-Murray References

153

References 7 U.S.C. 2801 et seq. 1974. The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 1997. Programmatic Agreement regarding cultural resources management on National Forests in the State of Washington. Signed by the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer. America’s Byways. 2006. Washington State/Other Byways in Washington. http://www.byways.org/browse/states/WA/. Anderson, R. 2005. Personal communication. Owner, Sauk River Trading Post, Darrington, WA. March 24, 2005. Bennett, J. and T. Bennett. 1997. A guide to the whitewater rivers of Washington. Swiftwater Publishing Company, Portland, OR. Blukis Onat, A.R. 1990. Cultural resource inventory of Mt. Loop Highway. BOAS, Inc., Seattle, WA. Blukis Onat, A.R. and J.L. Hollenbeck, eds. 1981. Inventory of Native American religious use, practices, localities and resources study area on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Washington state. Institute of Cooperative Research, Seattle, WA. Blukis Onat, A.R., L.A. Bennett and J.L. Hollenbeck. 1980. Cultural resource overview and sample survey of the Skagit Wild and Scenic River study area on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Washington state. Institute of Cooperative Research, Seattle, WA. Bunte, K. and L.H. MacDonald. 1999. Scale considerations and the detectability of sedimentary cumulative watershed effects. Tech. Bull. 776. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), Research Triangle Park, NC. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2003. Conversion factors: construction and demolition. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LGLibrary/DSG/ICandD.htm. Accessed March 5, 2006. Carey, A.B. 2003. Biocomplexity and restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest: inducing spatial heterogeneity with variable-density thinning. Forestry. 76(2):127-136. Carey, A.B. and S.M. Wilson. 2001. Induced spatial heterogeneity in forest canopies: responses of small mammals. Journal of Wildlife Management. 65(4):1014-1027. Carlson, R.L. 1990. Cultural antecedents. In Suttles (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians: Northwest Coast, Vol 7:60-69. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute (SEI), Portland, Oregon. David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1999. Environmental baseline assessment for chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and native char (Salvelinus confluentus, Salvelinus malma) in the Sauk River and Sauk River Forks fifth-field watersheds, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Washington. Report FORX 0236. Bellevue, WA. Dortch, W. 2006. Personal communication. Sauk River resident. March 31, 2006. Doyle, J.E. 2005. Suspected effects of recent flood disturbance to the aquatic environmental baseline conditions in the forest river systems. Unpublished report. Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, Mountlake Terrace, WA.

R-1

Driskell, D., ed. 1993. Universal access to outdoor recreation: a design guide. PLAE, Inc., Berkeley, CA. Dunwiddie, P.W. and R.C. Kuntz II. 2001. Long-term trends of bald eagles wintering on the Skagit River, Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management. 65:290-299. Erickson, D. 1997. Elliott Creek trail reconstruction. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report No. R1997060500012. On file at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mountlake Terrace, WA. Federal Register. 1982. USDI – USDA final revised guidelines for eligibility, classification, and management of river areas. 47 FR 39454. Washington, DD. Fish, J. 1990. Glimpses of the past. In Onat: Cultural Resource Inventory of Mt. Loop Highway. BOAS, Inc., Seattle, WA. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior [and others], Portland, OR. Gregory, S.V. and P.A. Bisson. 1997. Degradation and loss of anadromous salmonid habitat in the Pacific Northwest. In Stouder, Bisson and Naiman (eds.): Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options. p. 277-314. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY. Hamilton, W. 2006. Personal communication. Assistant Forest Engineer, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. March 20, 2006. Hearne, C. and J.L. Hollenbeck. 1996. Cultural resources inventory strategy: Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Mountlake Terrace, WA. Hollenbeck, J.L. 1987. A cultural resource overview: prehistory, ethnography and history, Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Seattle, WA. Hollenbeck, J.L. and S. Carter. 1986. A cultural resources overview: Wenatchee National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA. Jani, M. 2000. Forestland crossings: assessment and costs. Presentation to the Salmon Habitat Restoration Cost Workshop, sponsored by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Gladstone, OR, November 2000. Accessed March 5, 2006. http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st5/abstracts/Salmon_Habitat_Restoration_Cost_Workshop_2000.htm Jones, J. 2005. Personal communication. Mayor, City of Darrington, WA. August, 2005 Ketcheson, G. 1986. Sediment rating equations: an evaluation for streams in the Idaho Batholith. General Technical Report INT-213. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Ketcheson, G. and R. Hausinger. 2006. Forgotten Thin Plus commercial thin EA – revised. Darrington Ranger District, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region. Kurtz, J. 1995. Mountain Loop Highway traffic projection. Analysis paper submitted to Federal Highway Administration. Transportation Specialist, Snohomish County Public Works, Everett, WA. July 31, 1995. Leary, R.F. and F.W. Allendorf. 1997. Genetic confirmation of sympathic bull trout and Dolly Varden in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 126:715-720. Lonsdale, W.M. and A.M. Lane 1994. Tourist vehicle vectors of weed seed in Kakadu National Park, northern Australia. Biological Conservation. 69:277-283

R-2

Losensky, B.J. 1989. Effect of roadside vegetation cover on spotted knapweed density. In: Fay, P.K. and J.R. Lacey, eds. Proc. 1989 knapweed symposium, EB 45, p. 144-150. Montana State University Extension Service, Bozeman, MT. Majors, H.M. and R.C. McCollum, eds. 1981. A railroad survey across the North Cascades in 1870, D.C. Linsley. Northwest Discovery. (2) 4: 202-265. Metcalf, R.C. 1979. Energy dissipation during sub-glacial abrasion at Nisqually Glacier, Washington, USA. Journal of Glaciology. 23(89):233-246. Metzler, D.J. and R.C. Dunnell. 1987. Fluted points from the Pacific Northwest. Current Research in the Pleistocene 4. Center for the Study of Early Man. University of Maine, Orono, ME. Mills, H.H. 1975. Estimated erosion rates on Mt. Rainier, Washington. Geology. 4:401-406. Muir, P.S., Mattingly R.L., Tappeiner J.C. II, Bailey J.D., Elliott W.E., Hagar J.C., Miller J.C., Petersen E.B., Starkey E.E. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0006. U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, OR. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470w-6. Nichols, R.A., 2004 Field Evaluations 1980, 1990, 1995, and 2004. Reports on file at Mt. Baker Ranger District Office, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Sedro-Woolley, WA. North, D. 1999. Washington whitewater. The Mountaineers, Seattle, WA. Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. 1990. Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 800, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Poehlman, E.S. 1979. Darrington, mining town/timber town. Gold Hill Press, Shoreline, WA. Public Law 90-542, as amended. 1968. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287. Public Law 95-625. 1978. Establishing the Skagit Wild and Scenic River System. Section 703. RW Beck, Inc. 1995. Mt Loop highway project reconnaissance report. Project PFH7, Work Order No. 95 AL020. Alpha Engineering Group Inc. for the Federal Highways Administration. Sec. III B. Hydrology P4. Schroeder, P.R. 2005. Integration of dredging and disposal (Tab F). Powerpoint presentation to the Environmental Dredging Workshop: training sponsored by US Environmental Protection Agency for EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers project managers. Seattle, WA. April 20, 2005. Selvig, P. 1981. Flood damaged roads and bridges, flood of 1980. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report No. 05-02-01. On file at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mountlake Terrace, WA. Sheley, R.L. and J.K. Petroff. 1999. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. Snohomish County (WA). 2006. Mountain Loop Highway traffic count data. Personal communication with data from Jeri Hokanson, Snohomish County Public Works, Traffic Operations, Everett, WA. April 6, 2006. Snover, A.K., P.W. Mote, L. Whitely Binder, A.F. Hamlet, and N.J. Mantua. 2005. Uncertain future: climate change and its effects on Puget Sound. A report for the Puget Sound Action Team by the Climate Impacts Group (Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans), University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Snyder, R.V. and J.M. Wade, 1970. Soil resource inventory, Mt. Baker National Forest, Bellingham, WA. p. 267.

R-3

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.L. Kaiser. 1998. Effects of recreational activity on wintering bald eagles. Wildlife Monographs. 137:1-46. Stouder, D.J., P.A. Bisson and R.J. Naiman, Eds. 1997. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future options. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. Swain, S. 2004. Mountain Loop ERFO. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report No. R2005060500012. On file at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mountlake Terrace, WA. Swain, S. 2006. Mountain Loop ERFO amendment. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report No. R2005060500009. On file at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mountlake Terrace, WA. Swanson, F.J., M.M. Swanson and C. Woods. 1981. Analysis of debris avalanche erosion from steep forested lands: an example from Mapleton Oregon, USA. International Association of Hydrological Sciences, Pub. 132, p. 67-75. The Herald. 2006. Darrington road slump slows a bit. Everett, WA, February 14, 2006. The Herald. 2006. Slump in hill may isolate Darrington. Everett, WA. February 10, 2006. The Seattle Times. 2005. Gas-pump angst: why rising price riles us up. Business and Technology section. Seattle, WA, August 14, 2005. Tyser, R.W. and C.A. Worley. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana, (USA). Conservation Biology. 6(2):253-262. US Dept. of Agriculture. 1983. Environmental compliance: fish and wildlife policy. Departmental Regulation 9500-4. Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service. 1935. Mt. Baker National Forest, Washington. F.A. Silcox, Chief; T.W. Norcross, Chief Engineer. Map 1:126,720 scale. On file at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mountlake Terrace, WA. USDA Forest Service. 1936. Mt. Baker National Forest, Washington. F.A. Silcox, Chief; T.W. Norcross, Chief Engineer. Map 1:253,440 scale. On file at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mountlake Terrace, WA. USDA Forest Service. 1949. Mt. Baker National Forest, Washington. Lyle E. Watts, Chief; Anthony B. Dean, Chief Division of Engineering. Map 1:253,440 scale. On file at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mountlake Terrace, WA. USDA Forest Service. 1977. The Skagit wild and scenic river study report: a study of the Skagit, Cascade, Sauk and Suiattle Rivers in Washington state for possible inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system. Pacific Northwest Region, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Seattle, WA. USDA Forest Service. 1981. Guide for predicting sediment yields from forested watersheds. Northern Region, Missoula, MT and Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service. 1983. River Management Plan (Final) – Skagit River Volumes I and II. USDA Forest Service. 1990. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Northwest Region. Seattle, WA. USDA Forest Service. 1990. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan: final environmental impact statement.. Pacific Northwest Region. Seattle, WA. USDA Forest Service. 1991. Trail management handbook: chapter 2 - trail development. Forest Service Handbook 2309.18. Washington, DC.

R-4

USDA Forest Service. 1993. A first approximation of ecosystem health: National Forest System lands, Pacific Northwest. R-6-REAP. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Noxious weed management. Forest Service Manual 2080. Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service. 1996. Sauk River and Sauk River Forks fifth-field watershed analysis. Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, Darrington Ranger District, Darrington, WA USDA Forest Service. 1996. Sauk River and Sauk River Forks Watershed Analysis. Darrington Ranger District, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA Forest Service. 1997. Grizzly bear recovery – North Cascades ecosystem. File code 2600, dated August 12, 1997. Memo to the Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region, from the Forest Supervisors of the Okanogan, Wenatchee, and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests. On file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Mountlake Terrace, WA. USDA Forest Service. 1997. Programmatic agreement among the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer regarding cultural resources management on National Forests in the State of Washington. On file at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mountlake Terrace, WA. USDA Forest Service. 1999. Amendment No. 14 to the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Northwest Region. Seattle, WA. USDA Forest Service. 2000. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and Washington Department of Ecology for meeting responsibilities under federal and state water quality laws. On file, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mountlake Terrace, WA. USDA Forest Service. 2001. Forest-Wide Late Successional Reserve assessment. Pacific Northwest Region, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest., Mountlake Terrace, WA. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Forgotten Thin Plus commercial thin EA. Darrington Ranger District, Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest roads analysis. Summary report and documentation on file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Mountlake Terrace, WA. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest roads analysis database. CD-ROM with data on file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Mountlake Terrace, WA. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Preventing and managing invasive plants: draft environmental impact statement. Document No. R6-NR-FHD-PR-02-04. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Surface water chemistry monitoring record. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Letter to Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer from Jan L. Hollenbeck, Forest Archaeologist. File Code 2360, dated May 9, 2005. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Mountlake Terrace, WA. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding hydraulic projects conducted by the USDA

R-5

Forest Service. On file at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mountlake Terrace, WA. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and animals. Forest Service Manual 2670. Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon. USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation measures standards and guidelines. Portland, Oregon. USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Record of decision to remove or modify the survey and manage mitigation measure standards and guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon. USDA Forest Service and Snohomish County (WA). 1990. Mountain Loop Scenic Byway. Joint nomination of the Mountain Loop Highway for National Forest Scenic Byway designation by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and Snohomish County, WA. On file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest, Mountlake Terrace, WA. USDC Census Bureau. 2006. State & County QuickFacts, Snohomish County, Washington. Internet access: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53061.html. USDC National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Endangered Species Act Section 7 formal consultation, biological and conference opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act essential fish habitat consultation: ERFO flood repair, Mountain Loop Highway, Road 20, milepost 33.6 and 35.6, sixth field HUC No. 171100060104, Sauk River/Goodman Creek, Snohomish County, Washington. Transmitted by cover memo to the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor on October 28, 2005, NMFS Tracking No. 2005/00640. Northwest Region, Seattle, WA. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, MT. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan supplement: North Cascades Ecosystem Recovery Plan chapter. Missoula, MT. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Biological opinion and conference report for effects to Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout and proposed bull trout critical habitat from the 2005 Sauk River subbasin flood repairs, Darrington Ranger District, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Washington: Appendix C - sedimentation. Transmitted by cover memo to the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor on August 16, 2005, FWS Reference Numbers 1-3-05-F-0368, 1-3-05-C-0369, 1-3-05-F-0370, 1-3-05-IC- 0371, 1-3-05-F-0372, 1-3-05-IC-0373, 1-3-05-F-0374, and 1-3-05-IC-0375. Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, WA. USDI Minerals Management Service. Undated. The ocean’s sand, a natural resource. http://www.mms.gov/mmskids/PDFs/sandanaturalresource.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2006. Waller, J.S. and C. Servheen. 2005. Effects of transportation infrastructure on grizzly bears in northwestern Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69:985-1000. Washington Department of Ecology. 2006. River and Stream Water Quality Monitoring. Monitoring Station 04C070 - Sauk River near Rockport. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/riv/station.asp?theyear=&tab=final_data&scrolly=186&wria=04 &sta=04C070. Accessed February 10, 2006.

R-6

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1988. Water quality standards for surface waters of the state of Washington. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-201-070. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Geology data. Olympia, WA. (Internet Access: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/ ) Washington State Forest Practices Board.1994. Ambient timber, fish, and wildlife monitoring program. TFW- AM9-94-001. Olympia, WA Washington State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Pursuant to Section 800.13 of the 1986 Regulations (36 CFR 800) implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Watson, J.W. and D.J. Pierce. 2001. Skagit River bald eagles: movements, origins, and breeding population status. Final Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Weisdepp, L. 1993. 4096 Road obliteration. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report No. R1993060500007. On file at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mountlake Terrace, WA. Zahn, R. 1989. Eubie Timber Sale planning area. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report No. R1989060500046. On file at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Mountlake Terrace, WA.

R-7